Now that we've solved the world's problems, let's get back to the new and improved rating list. TWIC has the most comprehensive display of the new top 100 list with historical perspective. ChessBase also has the women's top list, which has a few notable features as well.
Of course the big news is India's Viswanathan Anand becoming only the sixth player ever to hold the #1 position on the FIDE rating list, with 2786 points. His +3 win at Linares combined with Topalov's -2 gave Vishy the top spot with a comfortable 14-point margin. Previous #1 Topalov and world champion Kramnik are =2-3 on the list at 2772, no small irony for the bitter rivals who contested a world championship match in October. With so many strong players moving around in the top 10 these days it's unlikely the #1 spot will remain exclusive for long. It's looking more pares than primus these days, as indicated by the fact Anand becomes #1 despite being well below his career peak rating of 2803. Topalov showed he could dominate for a stretch, but you stop looking Kasparovian the minute you finish equal last at Linares. He'll have a chance to retake the top spot at the May Mtel Masters tournament on his home turf while Anand isn't active until Dortmund in June-July.
Teimour Radjabov's equal first at Corus moved him into the top ten at last, landing at the lucky seven spot. We all remember the Boy from Baku II as a child star nearly a decade ago. The fellow wunderkind he was battling at the time was China's Bu Xiangzhi, who has become a very solid GM but isn't showing much upward mobility these days and currently languishes at #48. (That he was six feet tall and shaving at 14 is just a coincidence.) Radjabov's Azerbaijani countryman Mamedyarov is a slot above at #6. China now has eight players on the top 100 list, although I'm not sure how Ye Jiangchuan lost nine points without playing a game. Typo, probably. It's sad to see so many top players inactive or nearly inactive for such long stretches. 22% of the top 100 players are Russian, by the way.
Viktor Korchnoi, whose rating should be written MMDCXXIII, dropped a bit but is still in the top 100 at 2623. At 76 he's 22 years older than anyone else on the list. That's one and a half Carlsens! It appears Anatoly Karpov has dropped off the list from inactivity, which seems notable to me. It's a shame since I'm sure he could still produce some good games if he trained up a bit. But for someone as competitive as Karpov, with his record of achievement, losing to a level of player he used to be able to crush routinely must be frustrating. Getting old ain't for sissies.
For the ladies, Indian's Humpy Koneru is steadily accumulating points. She's now just a few points away from passing Susan Polgar to become the second-highest rated woman ever, I believe. Not really a landmark when that's still 150 points below Judit Polgar, but the Indian chess press depends on me to feed them these things.
why isnt humpy on the list of top juniors? isnt 2575 > 2562? Or is a girl not a junior? I have seen a couple of other posters also mention this in comments to various Dirt articles.
"Indian's Humpy Koneru is steadily accumulating points. She's now just a few points away from passing Susan Polgar to become the second-highest rated woman ever, I believe."
And people are worried about KASPAROV'S well-being?
Mig wrote: {
"It appears Anatoly Karpov has dropped off the list from inactivity, which seems notable to me. It's a shame since I'm sure he could still produce some good games if he trained up a bit."
}
Chess has a sad tradition of seeing too many of its notable players drop out of competition at an unnecessarily young age.
I believe a portion of this problem would be eliminated if there were some significant long time-control chess960 tournaments.
I suspect that the burdens of maintaining current knowledge of the latest deep opening variations is much of what eventually drives away players like Susan Polgar and Anatoly Karpov and Jon Speelman and John Nunn (to say nothing of Larsen, Portisch, Hort, Seirawan etc). Once they leave the game, they fall too far behind in opening knowledge to return.
These burdens may have contributed to Bobby Fischer's last minute decision to back away from the fully negotiated 1978 Karpov-Fischer title match.
Most chess tournaments are annual affairs, set in their ways. New tournaments seem rare. But with chess960, a new sponsor could pull in some big player names we rarely see anymore, like Karpov and Seirawan and Nunn etc. Seems like an opportunity.
Maybe her days as a junior has passed. She was born 1987, is a junior considered age 21 or 18? That would make a big difference in this case.
I wonder whether the players currently ranked 8-15 will ever (again) reach up into the top 5?
Players 1-7 seem strong, and 5-7 are getting stronger.
FIDE's top ratings list (2007-04-01):
1 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2786
2 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2772
3 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
4 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2762
5 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2759
6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2757
7 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2747
---
8 Leko, Peter g HUN 2738
9 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2736
10 Adams, Michael g ENG 2734
11 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2733
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2729
13 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2727
14 Navara, David g CZE 2720
15 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2717
I dont think opening theory is the problem for the players. There are many opportunities to play unique openings. There have been GMs who play 1. e4 c5 2. Na3!? (Shabalov just to name one) and we have not seen many KIA formations as white against the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann. Also how about some French Defenses instead of the Sicilian or Anti-Marshall Lopez every time. Oh, and what happened to the Ruy Lopez, exchange variation? Didn't Fischer used to play it as white?
One top player of today's time that plays unique in the opening is Morozevich, you never know what to expect from him. I really respect his play.
One thing that would be interesting to see is Elo rating of different openings...you know, assume all the French defenses for the past year were played by the same player and he had no other games. What would be that player's rating? Such info would factor in opponent's rating, frequency of use, outcome against different ratings and be pretty darn interesting.
Good point Matt. It is possible that you are still in the Girl list in your 21st year but not in the Junior list. I dont know Humpy's birthday.
However, even in the Jan 07 list (she couldnt have turned 20 if she was born in 1987), her rating was higher than the 20th rated junior. She didnt make the list.
Funnily now, Vishy's tenure as #1 will depend on countryman Krishnan Sasikiran. A -2 against Topialovtz will surely see Vishy slip back to #2 while a +2 against the Bulgarian will keep Vishy firmly fixed on top.
How about a having a training session for the Chennai lad Vishy?
I don't know if you can remember about the legendary 60 points elo difference between Topalov and Kramnik, but it seems like it has all vanished into dust. The only thing that hasn't vanished (and has even increased) is Kramnik's clearly positive head to head result against Topalov.
Where is Topalov today? Organizing super tournaments with not-so-top-GMs-still-wanting-to-play-chess-with-him (Sasikiran, Nisipeanu ... quite far from 2005 and 2006 Mtel standards).
Shall I remind everybody that Morozevich is still publicly claiming that Topalov has been using computer assistance for the last two years, and that since public attention has focused on this probability Topalov is playing (back) at his previous 2700 level?
@ GeneM
David Navara will make it to the top five.
I'd say Leko has a much better chance of getting back into the top 5..
Also, I'd like to bet against David Navara breaking into the top-5 anytime soon (<2009)..
Navara has lost approximately a billion rating points in league play. He is extremely talented and will hopefully bounce back, but I also doubt he will reach top 5 anytime soon.
8 Leko, Peter g HUN 2738
9 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2736
10 Adams, Michael g ENG 2734
12 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2729
15 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2717
Is the list of GM's that can easily make it to the top 5.
Topalov still unofficially a couple of points ahead of Kramnik because of the latter's draw against Smeets in the Dutch league.
Kasparov's 2850 from years ago becomes that more impressive considering rating inflation and the fact that the top players seem to have trouble even breaking the 2800 barrier.
Navara has very little chances to get into the top 5.
Leko is talented enough to get back in the top 5 but ... is he really interested in that? Just look at his history : this guy has spent ALL HIS LIFE learning how to retain equality in a chess position. This guy managed to reach the final game of his match against Kramnik in Brissago with a +1 score. And he lost that final game... which was the final game of his chess career. Now he's just a shadow of himself, playing chess in supertournaments because that's the only thing he can do to pay the bills, but he has simply lost the faith.
Ivanchuk can get back in the top 5 almost anytime. Just enough for him to be alone in his head for a few months.
Svidler is also a serious candidate for the top 5.
On the other hand, Morozevich will probably drop out soon, and since Topalov can't communicate any more with Cheparybkailov I guess it won't take long before he'll clear a spot for a real chess player.
Today, in terms of playing strength I guess that an honnest top5 would be Kramnik-Anand on 2 first places, Aronian and Svidler 3th and 4th and Radjabov on 5th place. Mamedyarov still has everything to prove since he hasn't played in any major event till now.
ruslan, about Navara: any chess prodigy could possibly become world champion, only time will tell who actually does.
Leko stated in some recent interview that his ambition right now is to become world champion. Doesn't sound like somebody who lost faith.
Ivanchuk, Svidler etc have obviously top 10 qualities, but you could say this about most players from let's say the top 50, if, if, if...
"Now [Leko's] just a shadow of himself, playing chess in supertournaments because that's the only thing he can do to pay the bills, but he has simply lost the faith."
Funny how nobody said that before Morelia/Linares. Of course, by then he had won the Tal Memorial in November and then the ACP Rapid Cup in January. One bad tournament and you're a nobody again, simply business as usual.
I understand Svidler has been struggling with his health lately. Normally I think he is top 5 or so. He will be very dangerous in Mexico.
@Ruslan
If Morozevich is publicly making accusations of cheating without providing proof, he needs to be suspended from tournament play
dirtbag, then I hope you include Topalov in that same category of suspended players.
Still want to see where Moro has made these public accusations.
Ruslan, didn't you get sick of repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
D.
So the not-shaking-hand-prior-to-play between Topa and Moro was due to the latter's accusation?
If Radjabov is a junior, so is Koneru Humpy. She is 19 days younger. (source: Wikipedia)
I wonder if it is easier to gain rating points by playing women-only tournaments. That is the only justification I can think of for excluding a girl from a top-20 junior list. (A weak reason, because elo is supposed to reflect performance between players of any strengths.) Surely, Humpy has noticed her exclusion in the Jan and April lists, and doesn't seem to have protested.
If you want to know how the rest of the world feels when America ceaselessly trumpets one of their chess heroes, just look at Indian coverage of Anand/Koneru/Sasikiran.
The Indian coverage is a bit in-your-face, but they're not really trumpeting to the outside world. They're writing for the domestic readership, celebrating the homeboy's achievements. I wish they also appreciated Topalov's or Kasparov's achievements, but it is understandable. It's like how Croatia reacted to Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon.
One should rather feel for Anand, because Indian media and fans like to burden their heroes with expectations. Anand mentioned how it derailed his 1994 Candidates match against Kamsky in Hyderabad. Anand was 2 games up, with 3 games to go and the press was already celebrating. He lost 4 out of the last 5 games including, get this, the two rapid tiebreak games. No wonder he now lives in Spain.
I can't believe Morozevich is number four!
Team Aronian, Mamedyarov, Radjabov seems quite dangerous to me. Due to natural agening they seem to be natural top-3 in just a couple of years from now.
I wonder if Carlsen can break through those fellows.
In my opinion Navara is very talented and will be top-5 soon. In a year or two.
Moro-s 4th place is really very impressive. He brings a piece of 100-year-old romantism into tournaments. I wish we had less Lekos and more Morozevichs.
Off topic: Garry didnt turn up for this morning's radio interview in Ireland. He was due to be interviewed fromna studio in London. The program started with blurb about him being on in half an hour and finished by announcing he was awol ?
I guess his notorious tardiness got in the way
Seirawan has been inactive for years, how does he deserve to still be on the list? Korchnoi is just amazing at his age....this would still be extraordinary if he were even 10 years younger!
Not true Bruce, Yasser is still playing chess, e.g. for the Dutch league. You can see him in action at http://www.chessvibes.com/?p=649&lp_lang_pref=en
Anand's comments on the whole fracas
"Racism not involved in FIDE decision: Anand"
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2007/apr/03anand.htm
"Kasparov's 2850 from years ago becomes that more impressive considering rating inflation and the fact that the top players seem to have trouble even breaking the 2800 barrier."
It's not important who said this (because I hear/read it once a week), so nobody should take it personal, but:
I really, really wonder if such nonsensical remarks will EVER cease being uttered. Such a statement just reads "I don't understand zilch of the rating system!" or "Somebody has tricked me into believing the rating system is something it isn't!"
- there is no 2800 "barrier" [2800 moves up and down, in terms of how difficult it is to reach. It was probably easier for Kasparov being 2830+ in July 2001 than it is to be 2800+ today, for instance.]
- the differences of playing strength at the top are less today, than say in July 2001 - making it _more_ difficult to move away from the field than it was back then
- example of previous point: Kasparov 2838, Kramnik 2803, Anand 2797 and then a full 50 points down to number four, Adams at 2747. Forgetting Kasparov, Kramnik and Anand were a horse length ahead of the rest in 2001 - they aren't today, so it's more difficult to break away.
- never, ever forget that the rating system is a relative one - "2800" isn't a measure of playing strength, it's a relative measure of results
- NOTE, VERY IMPORTANT: there has been no inflation among 2600+ players since 2001!!! Those being 2600+ back then have on average the same rating today (I've done the math), but there are completely NEW and strong 2600+ players, like Aronian, Navara, Mamedyarov, Radjabov, Karjakin, Carlsen, Sasikiran, Harikrishna, Bu, Yue Wang, Hao Wang, Jakovenko, Nakamura, and even Kamsky (!) - most of these are children of the computer age, and they are probably genuinely stronger than their 2001 counterparts (most of the top players of 2001 are still present _and_ strong, with a very few exceptions) - so there are MORE strong players today than in 2001, making it HARDER to break loose from the pack.
- anyone who thinks that calculating the average of the top 100 players is a method of measuring inflation (disregarding increase in total number of players in the system, and therefore addition of new, strong players; and disregarding the difference between how slowly older (as in 30-40+), established players lose their playing strength, compared to how fast new, younger players increase their strength) - anyone who still believes calculating the average of the top 100 players gives a clue about inflation, badly needs to go back to school!
- this is the end of my rant :) [Sadly, I think ELO ratings will be misunderstood forever, because ppl WANT TO misinterprete ratings as being a measure of playing strength...]
Ye Jiangchuan seems to be a borderline case for inactivity.
According to his rating report, he played just six games in 2006. Thereby he lost 9 nine points. His rating would still have been high enough for the Top 100, but it seems he has been left out -as Karpov and Kasparov- for inactivity.
His January rating should be 2732 but maybe TWIC didn't think of the possibility of inactive players losing points.
I don't know the subtle details of the inactivity rule - strange enough, he shows up on the April list without having played any more.
I don't know what happened with the Ye Jiangchuan I was too busy trying to get the rating list up to notice this.
I can only think that there must have been a correction between this list and the initially published January list and that he was in fact rated 2632 in January.
I can't check this as the FIDE site is down you have to have played four games in a year to be considered active and Karpov dropped out in October. Yasser has played some Dutch League which keeps his rating ticking over.
Those 1.1 billion fans seem to generate way too much traffic.
If four games is enough, he should have been on the January 2007 list.
I'm sure he wasn't on the original January 2007 Top 100 list, and earlier today when the ratings server was still working, his personal ratings card did show 6 games for the Jan'07 rating period, but didn't show the January 2007 list either. There was a gap from I don't know when - October 2005? - to April 2007.
Maybe they corrected his rating but didn't re-evaluate the January Top 100 list. Makes you think if they do it all by pocket calculator and type the results in.
So, some folks were dismissing the #1 rating as 'unimportant'. I think that the events of the past few days speak clearly about it's importance. Strongly so!!
Congrats to Anand! It would have been a sad event had he not had the chance to be at that spot.
D.
Dimi: I think the events of the past few days do not prove the importance of #1, they just show that FIDE can't totally disregard the rest of the chess world. First FIDE does what it did in Elista, awarding Topalov a free point, and now they tried to pretend Topalov was still #1 even though everyone knew Anand surpassed him? It obviously wasn't fair and the people spoke up. It had very little to do with importance of #1 spot on the rating list, it had much more to do with doing the right thing.
Well, I think it can be both: FIDE is obliged to do the right thing, of course. But no-one would care as much if it didn't involve the very prominent (and self-evidently important) #1 spot. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts -- unless you have an axe to grind...
>First FIDE does what it did in Elista, awarding Topalov a free point
Until now I had been convinced that it was Kramnik's decision not to play game 5, not FIDE's...
>and now they tried to pretend Topalov was still #1 [...]
LOL Yes, FIDE acts so much in favour of Topalov that they give Kramnik only 1 guaranteed rematch instead of 10, or what are you trying to say ? (Topalov: 0 rematches, despite Danailov raising millions of $, which is even against FIDE regulations...)
about kramnik and kasparov tying for the top spot in 1996 ..
I know kramnik gained 45 points in the previous 6 months while Kasparov lost 20 to end up with 2775. If someone has the individual calculations for the six months ending on Jan 1 1996, one can see without rounding who was higher. It should establish whether Kramnik acctually wrested the #1 spot from Kramnik or not. It will also test Kasparov's claim of being #1 uninterrupted for 21 years. Somehow I have the feeling Kramnik may have been ahead by a few decimal points - else I think we would have heard about it from Kasparov. This is not to tarnish Kasparov, who is the greatest chess player in the history of the game, but I think he is childish enough about things like these.
Obviously people have their own ideas of who was #1 in 96 and who was not, but, in my mind at least, doing the numbers without rounding will establish who was the legit #1 on Jan 1, 1996.
previous post erratum:
*whether Kramnik actually wrested the #1 spot from Kasparov or not
RB, some of those other points too, but why try to dismiss the obvious -- 4 threads later (on this forum alone), with all the ruckus and clamor abound, Mig & everybody else getting excited, and you tell me it was for nothing? Anand and the Indian Press did wonders to assert just how important that rating is… Look what’s going on over there, it's like Brahma's birthday.
As far as the implication that FIDE has a pro-Topalov stance...?!? Ok, but what would their motivation be? That's the first question you need to ask yourself and no need to go any further.
D.
"Until now I had been convinced that it was Kramnik's decision not to play game 5, not FIDE's..."
You have things turned completely upside down as usual. Anyone who followed the events could clearly see that it was Kramnik who insisted on game 5 being played, while FIDE and Topalov insisted on the lie that Topalov had already won it.
"Yes, FIDE acts so much in favour of Topalov that they give Kramnik only 1 guaranteed rematch instead of 10, or what are you trying to say ? (Topalov: 0 rematches, despite Danailov raising millions of $, which is even against FIDE regulations...)"
Danailov should have filed the challenge in time so that the match could have taken place legally. As it is there was no time according to the regulations. But now all of a sudden Topalov gets a guaranteed rematch if Kramnik wins Mexico, clearly a privilege as this was not part of any former agreement/announcement.
poisoned pawn: in my opinion, the rematch for Kramnik is ridiculous. "If Kramnik wins, then he plays Topalov" is just idiocy.
To me FIDE is not biased to everyone. It has a governing body of corrupt, incompetent people who care very little about chess. They depend on many people to keep their position-and, who puts the more pressure on them at the perticular moment, gets the benefits.
The only hope is that there is some limit to every idiocy, and the "parties" that have currently "invested" in Illumzhinov and co. will understand that they suffer themselves from the current situation. Every sport is for the fans in the first place((C) Mig), and we fans are dissatisfied.
And then, maybe, changes will come.
wonder what the rapid rating list would look like.. I was especially curious to see where Carlsen would stand after his (joint) win at Monaco in the rapids..
..I mean joint win with Kramnik, Ivanchuk & Leko (I consider that a joint first because when Vishy is part of the field, 2nd place is what you play for anyway)..
Dimi--
Right again, the #1 rating IS important.
But a million times as much fuss was made over Janet Jackson flashing her boob at the Superbowl, so we must agree THAT was much more important than Anand's climbing to the #1 rating.
And I still can't figure out why the all Kasparov-Karpov matches were so close, or why Kramnik defeated Kasparov and Topalov in their WCC matches.
Topalov and Danailov openly supported Ilyumzhinov, whereas Kramnik did the same for Kok. I do not remember any other grandmaster of the top ten supporting Ilyumzhinov openly, but maybe my memory plays a trick on me.
That would be a possible motivation for a positive bias of FIDE towards Topalov. Now the question, does it exist?
Well, if Kramnik wins Mexico, Topalov gets a match. Anand, Morozevich, Ivanchuk - they do not get that match. That seems rather biased to me. Of course FIDE is positively biased towards Kramnik as well, but maybe his manager negiotiated very well, suggesting he would not play otherwise.
But what did Topalov do to deserve this favor?
"Of course FIDE is positively biased towards Kramnik as well,"
Yes, but this is less clear. Kramnik does get the right to challenge the Mexico winner in case it's not him - positive. Kramnik has to defend his title in 2008 (and against the one player he least of all wants to have anything to do with) if he wins Mexico - negative.
Topalov gets something for free and nothing taken away.
"but maybe his manager negiotiated very well, suggesting he would not play otherwise."
Kramnik himself was clear that this was not a condition for playing in Mexico.
When did Kramnik openly support Bessel Kok?
Yah, the double rematch clause is very confusing. Kramnik had leverage against FIDE - give me a rematch clause (or whatever you want to call it) or I don't play Mexico and it's Schism II, the Wrath of Khan Kirsan. But Topalov? We can say it was shame he ended up outside of this cycle, but Kirsan's FIDE has never been concerned about credibility or shame. If they could call Khalifman and Kasimdzhanov world champions in the face of Kasparov and Kramnik, they'd hardly have trouble saying the same about the Mexico winner with Topalov running around, even as #1. He did lose to Kramnik, after all. I can only assume money was involved.
So let's make that the question of the week to see if we can get a real answer, beyond "he sort of deserved it." I don't recall even an attempt at an explanation. They aren't going to admit it if a few suitcases of cash were involved, but at least we deserve a good honest lie.
@ruslan: Svidler a top 5 player? Pahlease, the only thing mre boring than his game is cricket.
@acirce: interesting, the Topalov challenge didn't go thorugh because the rules were against it. Well, RULES state that a player gets awarded a win if his opponent doesn't show up for a game.
@greg kostner: The Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was indeed more important to a heck of a lot of people than chess is, plain and simple. The point is that world's #1 is important in the chess world - look at all the hoopla over in India or here on this blog.
@Oscar & co.: It is not clear why Kramnik gets a play a rematch if he loses his title in Mexico. Maybe FIDE wish to keep the match tradition after all. Topalov getting a rematch with Kramnik if the latter wins is a no-brainer since Topalov is by far the highest rated player among those not playing in Mexico. Furthermore, he was the previous FIDE world champion. And how does it look the if the current #2 (#1 for quite some time just before) in the world not to be included in the championship cycle?
@others: it is strange, when people talk about ethics committees, they seem to mention Topalov should be punished. But they say nothing about penalties against Morozevitch?
Indeed, my memory is playing tricks on me. I thought Kramnik openly supported Bessel Kok (he should have!), but it seems he didn't.
Topalov was included in the current cycle, he could have qualified for Mexico, just like Kramnik. He failed. Contrary to Anand et al., who have to end ahead of 7 others participating, he only had to beat 1 opponent. But he lost. So he got out of the cycle.
That he has the highest rating - so what? Would Kasparov get a match if he started playing again? Why would one qualify on rating alone for such an important match? Suppose Kramnik wins Mexico. If one really wants a match immediately after Mexico, it makes far more sense to me to let him play the number two. And not to the worldchampion 2 cycles earlier. It is like Tal, after Botwinnik-Petrosian, saying "I was worldchampion before this tournament/match and before the match I lost. Give me a rematch!".
Why does Topalov get this match (if Kramnik wins, of course)? I don't get it.
Now that the chess world (finally) has one, undisputed world champion, it would be obvious to all that the most logical thing to do would be to have Topalov in Kramnik's place in Mexico and have the Mexico winner play Kramnik.
If FIDE's 'logic' is to not let Kramnik rest like Karpov did when he faced a tired Vishy Anand in Lausanne, it is much more worse now by creating a situation where Kramnik can handpick his challenger.
Topalov sure doesn't deserve a rematch against Kramnik ahead of the #2 player behind Kramnik at Mexico (if Kramnik wins Mexico). But, he also doesn't deserve to be shut out completely as would be the case if Kramnik doesn't win Mexico (which is what is more likely in a round-robin tournament, given Kramnik's style of play).
FIDE I guess will remain this way under Kirsan...but maybe a public outcry is all that might be needed to have them change their minds again...
Miguel, I know you're one of those countless people who love to pretend that they are stupid or ignorant simply to be able to make a fake "point". It is very well documented - nobody who was following the events in Elista and the discussions around them - can possibly have missed it - that the decision of the Appeals Committee was illegal according to the regulations. Therefore "game 5" was started under illegal conditions and so Kramnik had absolutely no obligation to "show up".
How is Topalov excluded from any cycle? As Oscar said, he could have qualified for Mexico, but failed to. Now, for that matter, nothing is stopping him from participating in the World Cup to qualify for the 2009 match. Why does he deserve any privileges?
acirce,
Thanks for personalizing this.
More importantly, how is it that game 5 started under illegal conditions but then FIDE had to give the point to Topalov because otherwise Topalov would have WON IN COURT?
As far as I remember, the game Topalov-Kramnik was a championship game rather than round 1 of a new cycle.
Obviously, the most fair thing to do is have Toplaov play in Mexico instead of Kramnik. This way Topalov is not excluded from the cycle and Kramnik is not involved directly with who his challenger will be.
Topalov? Rematch? Who is this guy Topalov? What is his claim to fame to deserve a rematch? Has ever been near the top of the game and rankings? He couldn't possibly have been a World Champion who lost his title in a match, gimme a break, could he? There are no such match traditions where the former champion gets a chance for a re-match. Never happened before... He never pulled a dime to put towards a rematch, right? And it definitely wasn't FIDE that changed the rules at the last minute to disallow the direct challenge... Of course, the road that lead to the current situation was so far from arbitrary that something like a guy 'sorta deserves it in the name of tradition' doesn't count for much. Yeahh, Topalov is nothing, somehow his name only makes for gobbles of chatter on the blogs...
D.
Letting Topalov play Mexico, and Kramnik against the winner, causes other problems. I think the other 7 players will be quite annoyed, if they hear they do not only have to win the tournament before they can call themselves worldchampion, but also have to beat Kramnik.
The problems with the organizers might be solved. Of course they, and the sponsors, will go crazy when they hear they organize a qualification tournament only. But if Ilyumzhinov promises they get the title match as well, without costs, they might agree. I don't see this happen, because I don't see who will pay the prizefund.
This is also unclear in the current situation. If Kramnik wins Mexico, Topalov can challenge him. But does Topalov have to arrange the prizefund? And if somebody else wins, Kramnik can challenge the new champion. But does he have to arrange the prizefund?
It will be hard for Topalov to raise money for a match outside Bulgaria, whereas I rate Kramnik's chances as being even smaller. It was hard enough to raise money when he was still a worldchampion (for a match against Leko). On the other hand, they did have a sponsor for a match Topalov-Kramnik (FIDE said no).
Forget the illegal thing...the point is FIDE later decided the original decision was wrong and reversed it. In light of that, I would say they should also annul the outcome of decision, which was no game 5.
I agree that Topalov was not excluded from this cycle. However, I am not sure why Kramnik deserves being included twice--that seems equally unfair. The answer of course is that FIDE is trying to make-up for less than ideal Mexico set-up. It would make sense to simply have Kramnik play the winner of Mexico and put Topalov in the tournament in the place of Kramnik. But that would make the tournament non-title for anybody who follows chess. Sponsors would get upset. So we have to have Kramnik in Mexico. Then you have the fact that most people (Alexander Zhukov most prominently) like the idea of world champion losing his title only in a match. So you want Kramnik having to play somebody for the title in a match to continue lineal succession. Then you have Topalov and him utilizing the "Money in the Bank" provision of previous cycle set-up. At this time of course we realize that provision is ridiculous because it would inevitably result in champion running into conflicting schedules with everything else on the planet. But back in 2006 it seemed like a good idea. And sure Topalov's bank guarantee was not perfect nor was the schedule, but what's that sort of stuff to a reasonable man? Technicalities.
So you have a solution to all these people, which of course is a mess. But hopefully it's the last mess to end all the ones that came before it.
It is funny. Mexico would have been perfect for Kasparov if he had not retired. Justified or not, all he wanted was to start at the same level as Kramnik. I doubt anyone would have grudged him a spot with the candidates matches throwing up three instead of four candidates to go with the four who qualified from San Luis. Of course, this would have called for foresight and the announcement shd have come prior to the world cup, but FIDE has always been found wanting. In FIDE's defense, they couldnt have anticipated that Topalov would win San Luis and lose to Kramnik. Also that Mexican money was available. Finally, Kasparov's retirement also meant FIDE could bury Prague.
Of course, there is the other issue of whether Kramnik would have agreed to play in Mexico if Garry was there.
@acirce:Why does he (Topalov) deserve any privileges?
Because he won in San Luis and became (FIDE) world champion in a proper battle - not in a KO lottery.
@Oscar:I think the other 7 players will be quite annoyed..
They have no right to be annoyed. Kramnik is world champion and, instead of a lengthy candidates cycle, they will get a crack at him by just winning a round-robin event.
Ok, if you are one who disregards chess tradition and favor a wimbledon format where everyone starts equal, then its a different question. I support the purists and dont mind the champion being given a few privileges..
Dimi,
even if you really don't see diffenence between long-ago matches and rematches. Even if you REALLY consider Topalov a WCH like Capablanca, Fischer or Kasparov, and not like Khalifman.
Even if so, can you please tell me an example when the player who lost the title got rematch "IF THE REIGNING CHAMPION WINS ANOTHER CYCLE, or CHAMPIONSHIP".
Maybe my memory serves me wrong, and Petrosian has played a rematch with Fischer. You see the difference?
Also, as you will take time answering, please suppose such a situation:
Kramnik wins the Wch. in Mexico. AT THE SAME WCH, Anand gets the second place.
Can you argue that Kramnik should play Topalov in that case? Why? Why not Anand? Why not Spassky?
1. The right for a rematch was cancelled after Botwinnik beat Tal. It returned for Karpov-Kasparov. As far as I know there was only 1 match (the second one) with right-of-rematch to a losing champion in all of those (5?) matches. Because Karpov had to give up his 5-3 lead and play a new match instead. Good they cancelled the tradition of rematch; the worldchampion got already a favor because he would not have to go through the same long qualification tournaments as his opponent, another one, right on rematch, would be too much.
2. That Topalov has raised money for a new match against Kramnik, is irrelevant. He was too late to send in the proposals.
What rules were changed by FIDE at the last minute?
Topalov has had great results, in the far past (winning Amsterdam with Kasparov) and in the very recent past (among others winning Mexico). Surely he will win even more tournaments in great style.
But so did Anand. Won a big tournament recently, I heard. He also won a FIDE worldchampionship with almost everybody competing. Anand did not even get a unification match, like Topalov. Why would Topalov have far, far more rights than Anand?
And why would Topalov have more rights than the number two of Mexico, if Kramnik would win? Why would his result of 2005 be more important than that of somebody else in 2007?
Matt: "I suspect that the burdens of maintaining current knowledge of the latest deep opening variations is much of what eventually drives away players like Susan Polgar and Anatoly Karpov and Jon Speelman and John Nunn (to say nothing of Larsen, Portisch, Hort, Seirawan etc)."
There is an interview with Portisch to be published soon in a Hungarian magazine, on the occasion that he turns 70 on 4th April. In it he says:
"I played Fischer-chess several times in Mainz in recent years. I find it interesting, but the shuffled pieces disrupt the harmony of the starting position, and until you reach the middlegame you get some really ugly positions."
Then he goes on talking about how disappointed he is with all the cheating possibilities that come with the computer age, and a lot of other things that he dislikes about today's chess world. He never mentions that problems with opening preparation would be his reason for retiring.
By the way, he and Spassky will be playing a 6-game rapid match 2 weeks from now.
Perhaps a good compromise for rematch rule would be as follows:
A champion who had two successful title defenses gets a right to one single rematch in case of a subsequent loss.
What do you guys think?
That way, long-term champions like Karpov, Kasparov and Botvinnik don't get degraded to the start of the cycle based on a single battle.
On the other hand, if you just won the title you don't get to re-rematch back (Tal) and a single cycle champion has to prove it was more than a one-time fluke if he wants another chance at retaining the title.
The most titanic stand-offs in history were based on the rematch rule. Kasparov-Karpov. Botvinnik-Smyslov. Fans of chess still wish there was another Kasparov-Kramnik. Nobody really minds that guys who were more flash in the pan championship-wise never got a rematch (Spassky, Petrosian).
Why would he have more right than the #4 in Mexico? Or, #5 he asks... Why can't I have chocolate before dinner, mommy, why? Yes Oscar, when you grow up you’ll understand better the weight of facts and how history plays its hand in current events. You’ll also understand perhaps the concept of staging major events based on intrigue that creates viewer’s interest. Until that time you should just know that chocolate before dinner is bad for you. Go to bed now and no talking...
D.
Anand Nair Wrote: "Now that the chess world (finally) has one, undisputed world champion, it would be obvious to all that the most logical thing to do would be to have Topalov in Kramnik's place in Mexico and have the Mexico winner play Kramnik."
Not so obvious. Not so logical either.
First, that would preclude calling the Mexico Tournament the "World Championship".
What they have done is come to a compromise that, unbelievable it may seem, makes everyone happy to a certain extent.
If you win Mexico and you're not Kramnik, you play Kramnik for the title in the cycle. If you win and you ARE Kramnik, you play Topalov for the title in the cycle.
Topalov is appeased by getting his rematch shot at Kramnik if Kramnik wins. Kramnik is appeased by getting his 'rematch' shot at the winner of Mexico if it's not himself.
Strangely, it all makes sense if you step back and look at it.
This boat is very delicately balanced right now. I'd stop rocking if I were you.
"More importantly, how is it that game 5 started under illegal conditions but then FIDE had to give the point to Topalov because otherwise Topalov would have WON IN COURT?"
Oh, a STATEMENT IN CAPITALS based, no doubt, on solid evidence? Let's hear it.
"@acirce:Why does he (Topalov) deserve any privileges?
Because he won in San Luis and became (FIDE) world champion in a proper battle - not in a KO lottery."
Explain further. He won the FIDE World Championship in 2005, and you liked the format. Therefore he deserves privileges in 2008 - when there has been Elista 2006 as well as Mexico 2007 in between? Why?
@Yuri: Nah, doesn't sound very attractive. If a WC loses, regardless after how many successful title defences, the only privilige they should be able to get is being seeded higher in the new cycle. Chess is producing good players at unprecedednted rates nowadays and it is unfair to deprive bright upcoming players of the chance to compete for the title in favor of old ones.
@Oscar:Why would his result of 2005 be more important than that of somebody else in 2007?
Because he is not being given a chance to play in this 2007 cycle. The previous cycle is over. The world champion is Kramnik. Now, lets find a challenger for him. Why should Topalov be denied a right to challange Kramnik?
Its like you owe someone $100,000 but instead of paying that person that amount, you tell him that you will pay him ten times the amount if it rains in Arizona.. FIDE is ridiculous..give Topalov his right in Mexico, not a undeserving re-match clause..
>Kramnik wins the Wch. in Mexico. AT THE SAME WCH, Anand gets the second place.
>Can you argue that Kramnik should play Topalov in that case?
No.
But how does that justify Kramnik's privileges which are real facts by contrast to Topalov's, which are purely hypothetical ? If Topalov pulls his act together and plays well in Sofia Kramnik will not win Mexico. There is simply no reason for him to do so, since he wants to avoid Topalov as he did it with GK successfully for five years. If Topalov's tumble continues in Sofia, Kramnik might be motivated for Mexico to get a weaker opponent than #1 of Mexico (in case he doesn't win). Paradoxically Topalov is worse off when playing well v.v. Should he hustle ? Giving Kramnik this kind of choice is a disaster for chess sport.
If Kramnik wins, Topalov gets a shot at the title in 2008 because he played well in 2005. A good result of somebody else in 2007 does not count at all. That player would have no right at all.
Now - if Kramnik wins Mexico, and loses to Topalov, he surely has right on a rematch? After all, he did more than Topalov. Not only winning a worldchampion tournament, but also winning a match for the united title.
What do you think, Dimi?
Topalov played in the 2007 cycle. Just like other players (Aronian, Carlsen and so on) he had to play a match in Elista to qualify for Mexico. He lost, hence will not play in Mexico.
"If Topalov pulls his act together and plays well in Sofia Kramnik will not win Mexico. There is simply no reason for him to do so,"
Yes, there is no reason for Kramnik to defend his World Championship title. This is a good candidate for the most bizarre idea put forward on a chess blog so far in 2007.
Indeed it makes sense for Kramnik to lose (loose? Maybe Dimi is right and I should go to bed?!)the title, to try to win it back against some weak player (who won Mexico, a weak tournament compared to M-Tel).
Instead of trying to win Mexico, thus being certain of being worldchampion, not running the risk of losing the match against the winner of Mexico. And then trying to beat Topalov. Who he has beaten before, I think.
Oscar, Topalov did NOT have to play in Elsita to qualify. If he chose not to play Kramnik he would've been seeded directly into Mexico. How can you say the Topalov-Kramnik match was a qualifying one? It was the end of the old cycle, not beginning of a new one. So putting Topalov in Mexico this year instead of Kramnik is reasonable. I understand sponsors may not be very happy if the touranment is simply a qualifying one. However, answer this - who in their right mind will consider the Mexico 2007 winner to be the 15th world champion? More importantly, the GM's playing there must surely know that. Looks like the sponsors will try to market it as a world championship but the winner will get as much credit as Anand winning the FIDE knockouts or Topalov winning San Luis.
@Oscar:Topalov played in the 2007 cycle. Just like other players (Aronian, Carlsen and so on) he had to play a match in Elista to qualify for Mexico. He lost, hence will not play in Mexico.
Again, the match Topalov played cannot be considered the same as Aronian will be playing. Aronian gets to play a lower seed (and so do all the top seeds). Topalov didnt get that benefit..So he should play in Mexico.
Anyway, irrespective of Topalov's presence or absence, the fact that there is possibility that Kramnik can handpick his challenger, especially if he is out of the race for #1 at Mexico, shows how flawed the system is!
>Yes, there is no reason for Kramnik to defend his World Championship title. This is a good candidate for the most bizarre idea put forward on a chess blog so far in 2007.
No, if Topalov regains his strength, there isn't. Kramnik gets a second chance anyway in a format more suitable for him (match). Plus he can avoid Topalov. He certainly remembers how he was outplayed at the start of Elista - were it not for Topa's blunders/nerves Kramnik would have been dead lost. So why bother a couple of months World Champion status ? Have you ever heard of the term "sacrifice" ?
Kramnik does not make speculative sacrifices.
Gladiator; if just looking at the top 100 is not enough to indicate rating inflation, what is?
But rating inflation or not; the average of the top 100 has increased, just like it always does.
Players from the top 10 get the majority of their rating points from players in the top 100. So the way I see it: if somebody would mimic Kasparov's performance in tournaments he'd end up with more rating points than Kasparov at his peak just simply because the average rating of the top 100 has increased.
>>"the differences of playing strength at the top are less today, than say in July 2001"
That just shows Kasparov was in a leage of his own, a cut above the rest, and nobody around today can dominate like he did. Back then, (as if this is ages ago), everybody else had the same knowledge, databases etc, at his disposal, it's not as if there's recently been some revolutionary insight in chess knowledge that enables everybody to play perfect.
Admittedly; I do think it's become more difficult to dominate because more and more openings have been analysed to death (take the Marshall gambit, Sveshnikov) and more and more "drawing variations" are being used that are hard if not impossible to beat making it harder to rack up big scores in tournaments. But you didn't say that and I'm not really convinced by your arguments.
"He certainly remembers how he was outplayed at the start of Elista - were it not for Topa's blunders/nerves Kramnik would have been dead lost."
"I had a tooth-ache during the first game. In the second game I had a headache. In the third game it was an attack of rheumatism. In the fourth game, I wasn't feeling well. And in the fifth game? Well, must one have to win every game?" (Savielly Tartakower after losing five games straight)
As a San Diegan it warms my heart also to see this logic; it means that the San Diego Padres actually won the World Series twice. Well, they blundered away sure wins, actually, but they really *would* have won. Really.
@wandering:
I haven't got the time for an answer now - but I'll get back to you :) I'm happy for anyone taking a seriuos interest in understanding how these things really work!
ET: well, "this logic" seems to be in your head but is certainly not in my posts. Nowhere did I dispute the result of the match. The points Topalov won came from his superior preparation and understanding of dynamic positions, the points that Kramnik made where handed to him in form of Topalov's blunders. That's why Kramnik knows that if given the opportunity it's better to avoid a Topalov in top form because thats a different league altogether than his.
Anyway, why do I have to explain this for you, a person capable to connect to the internet and type sentences into web forms - which you obviously are - should have no difficulty to follow the discussion in this thread...
ET--
It's one of life's puzzles. Why do guys with "superior understanding of dynamic positions" keep losing to guys who merely play correct moves?
Kramnik beat Kasparov and Topalov and afterwards has been afraid of both of them. I hope he beats Anand in 2008 so he can be afraid of him, too.
It´s true that blunders often add dynamics to the game. For example in the final position at Elista, if Vesko wouldn´t have made the dynamic blunder, it would have been just static torture for him.
When facing a superior, more confident opponent, a blunder is often a subconscious face-saving device. The blunderer avoids the agony of getting outplayed by his opponent. He (and his fans) can then argue, "If I hadn't blundered, I woulda won."
The two worst blunders of Kramnik's career were played against Deep Fritz. Kasparov played two of his worst blunders in the Kramnik match and against Deep Blue. And then, of course, there's Topalov at Elista.
Zombre's comment expresses the situation about playing a match against Kramnik in the most precise way: you blunder and lose, or you do not blunder and lose.
To me, it's clear that no one of Kramnik's generation(Anand, Topalov and the others-you know) will be able to win him in WCH match. It will only happen when Kramnik gets older and loses his peak form. Then, a younger contender will have chances.
In the next generation the brightest is Aronian ihmo, he has some chances against Kramnik. If he fails, then the next generation-Karjakin-Radjabov-Carlsen will have more chances-Kramnik will be much older that time.
Now the Bulgarian chess federation wants Topalov back to #1 and that he be allowed to play in Mexico. I hope common sense prevails and the second demand be considered...
http://www.veselintopalov.net/article/bulgarian-chess-federation-in-support-of-veselin-topalov
@PJ
No, that is not what is going to happen. Anand will win Mexico and beat Kramnik in a match :)
While winning the Mexico is quite possible. I doubt about the match, but indeed that would be remarkable and close. I'd love to see such a match Anand Nair.
"Now the Bulgarian chess federation wants Topalov back to #1 and that he be allowed to play in Mexico. I hope common sense prevails and the second demand be considered..."
Pushing to over 90% the probability that the unprecedented non-counting of Linares in the first rating list was due to Bulgarian pressure.
You've got to give it to them for trying to get maximum bargaining power from FIDE's rejection of their rematch challenge. A cynic might think that was always the plan behind pushing for something that had a zero chance of ever happening - a match with no time to prepare played in the Bulgarian capital after Topalov and Danailov spread insults and lies about Kramnik. Though in a way I'd like to have seen their bluff called - Topalov's still, in many ways, Kramnik's ideal opponent.
Yes, me too:)
btw, I feel Vishy is very underrated in match play because of one loss against Kasparov. Even when he was very young and Karpov was on top, Vishy almost won a match against him. All his lost matches have been because of being unable to handle the phychological factors well enough. I'm sure with the age and wisdom he now possesses, that won't be the case anymore..
Vishy will beat Vlad Kramnik by at least a +2 score!
"Until when FIDE will give way to pressure and will not keep its principles?"
Priceless, on so many levels! Until FIDE bans Topalov for unethical conduct? Or gets rid of an absurd rule that offers a guaranteed challenge to anyone with a lot of money and a 2700 rating, rather than having a sensible system in place? (ok, perhaps they've done that already)
In any case, "principles" and FIDE in the same sentence?!
The Topalov propagandists pick and choose their "what-ifs" regarding Elista. It's true enough that avoiding blunders is part of the game, but if you're going to do that, why only disregard Topalov's blunders?
Topalov would not have had a winning position at all in game 2 if not for Kramnik's 31..Bxf8??
Even so, Topalov was STILL objectively winning after missing the simple win, it's just that he was gradually outplayed from that point -- so much for the notion that "the points that Kramnik made where handed to him in form of Topalov's blunders". This is not even true for game 10 either, since Kramnik was better and you can't assume that he would not have won without the blunder.
Let's go on and look at game 3, conveniently overlooked by the Topalovers, where Kramnik came extremely close to essentially deciding the match - getting way better out of the opening and missing, I think, two winning continuations. Then game 4 where Topalov was pushing but never really came close to winning. Then, of course, feeling desperate Topalov caused the scandal that nearly wrecked the match.
In the "what-if" and "coulda, woulda, shoulda" scenario, the match score is 2-2 or possibly 2.5-1.5 to Kramnik at that moment, a far cry from Kramnik being totally outplayed.
Such a lot of blah blah blah around Topalov... Who's that guy? What does means Fide world champion since the schism? Why have some people considered his title more valuable than the titles of Khalifman, Ponomariov, Karpov, Anand or Khalifman?
Has anyone given a thought to what will happen if Kramnik doesn't win at Mexico but beats the Mexico winner in a match? Will the winner be considered the 16th world champion at all? By anyone? That is why it is all the more reason to have Kramnik out of Mexico (and have Topalov in his place).
How has Khalifman fared after his win in fide tourney ? Never heard much of him
Gibraltar is now included in the April list as well. Korchnoi lost 20 elo points, so he is not in the top 100 after all.
8 Leko, Peter g HUN 2738
15 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2717
Only these 2 can regain top. My ranking would be:
Top 3 same
---
4.Aronian
5.Radjabov
6.Leko
---
7.Svidler
8.Ponomariov
9.Mamedyarov
Morozevich
Ivanchuk
---
12-20...
you put Morozevich too low.
>>
Letting Topalov play Mexico, and Kramnik against the winner, causes other problems. I think the other 7 players will be quite annoyed, if they hear they do not only have to win the tournament before they can call themselves worldchampion, but also have to beat Kramnik.
>>
Well, there's a very simple solution to that. Re-split the titles temporarily, award the FIDE title, but not the Classical title at Mexico (and a FIDE title tournament is all that the Mexico organizers are entitled to anyway. FIDE didn't control the Classical title when the contracts were signed).
Anyway, crown a new FIDE Champion at Mexico, and have him go on to play a second Unification match with Classical Champion Kramnik. Then stick to a match-final in the future.
This would require the cooperation of Kramnik, of course. Technically it wouldn't require the cooperation of the Mexico organizers, but depending on how anxious they are to have Topalov in their tournament, they might not fuss too much.
The only other alternative is Topalov Out, and we'll see him in 2009.
...or possibly next year if Kramnik wins Mexico.