Just thought I'd put up an APB here in case the FIDE office doesn't get back to me with fingerprints and an alibi for the MIA FIDE prez. When Kirsan Ilyumzhinov didn't appear at the opening ceremony in Mexico a brief item went out saying he was ill. But when he didn't make the closing ceremony it passed without a word as far as I can tell. Now Marky Mark points out he didn't even show up for Tibetan Culture Week in Kalmykia, and you know you don't want to tick off the Tibetans unless you've got a pretty good reason. Ill? Political battles in Russia? It became clear early this year that he wasn't as involved as much as expected with Mexico.
UPDATE: The FIDE office says he's alive and well, just very busy in Russia. He was in Moscow for Putin's announcement that he'll be staying in power until the oil runs dry.
By the way, the new rating list is out. As expected Anand crossed 2800 again and sits atop the chess world with 2801. That gives him a 14-point lead over, drumroll please, Ivanchuk at 2787! Three cheers for my fellow 1969ers. Chukky's amazing results leapfrogged him past Kramnik (2785) and Topalov (2769). During the WCh I asked who the next player would be to cross 2800 for the first time. Only Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov, and Anand have ever done it. Of course in five years there will be a dozen players over that mark, but who will do it first? Many said Radjabov or Carlsen. But now it's in reach of Ivanchuk, one of only four players in the top 40 born before 1970 (Anand, Gelfand, I. Sokolov). Will Ivanchuk's great recent results against mostly non-top-10 competition translate into supertournament success? More importantly, a victory at this year's World Cup in Khanty-Mansyisk? That would put him into a match with Topalov for the right to challenge the winner of the 2008 match between Anand and Kramnik.
Even Montezuma wants revenge on the guy...
There are tons of very recent Ilyumzhinov-related news in Russian at Yandex.ru.
There were serious tensions between buddhists in Kalmykia; he visited China as a member of an important China-Russia comission; finally he attended congress of Edinaya Rossiya party (i.e. Putin's party) in Moscow on 1-2 October.
No reason to worry so much about him.
1-2 for 69ers in this list!
Ivanchuk will be playing Board 1 for his team (of course) at the upcoming 2007 European Clubs Cup starting on Wednesday. It's 7 rounds, so if Chucky goes 7-0, I am sure that Ivanchuk would pick up the 13 ELO points that he needs to reach 2800.
Go Chucky!
>>so if Chucky goes 7-0
Oh, is that all?
Yup, only 7 rounds. This tournament has the distinction of being the only 7-rounder where norms are available.
Go Chucky!
Go, Chucky, go! Cross that line!
Yawn. Big deal, Choky runs up his rating by beating up on lesser competition. Unless he's been seeing a sports psychologist the next time he plays for something really important (World Cup, Challenger position, etc.) he'll patzer it like I do. Ivanchuk is the Greg Norman of chess: immense talent coupled with very little nerve.
Who cares about what's happening at the top of the list? Afromeev (at No. 67) was born in 1954 and is STILL improving. *cough cough* My money's on this super FM breaking 2800 before Ivanchuk, Gelfand, Sokolov or even Carlsen *cough cough hack hack* I haven't had so much fun watching the ratings since the Burmese invasion (bad pun there) at the turn of the century.
Its interesting seeing Ivanchuk's interview on macauleypeterson.com. One gets the sense that he's not comfortable in his own skin. Unlike Kramnik and Anand who exude comfort and unlike kasparov and topalov who exude so much energy that its hard to see whats below.
I read up about it and apparently, Ivanchuk has a history of instability, periods of genius and periods of mediocrity. Not surprised.
Do any of the top chess players use sports psychologists ?
>>Do any of the top chess players use sports psychologists ?
If I remember right, Anand had used Dr. Albert Toby during his match against Garry Kasparov in 1995. I think also, Toby's taking notes at Garry's press conferences had quite irked GK..
I got my first real sixty four square
Was the summer of 69?
I like Chucky because he was one of the few unfazed by Kasparov's "eye of sauron" persona. He dealt out some amazing crushes in the 90s - there was one with Bh6! in the VSB tournaments - does anyone remember that?
Also unsure of this "he does well only against lesser players" meme - Ivanchuk was world no 2 in 1991 displacing Karpov and has a good record against the top 10.
it is time for fide to think about some changes to the rules. Why not change Anand-Kramnik to Anand-Topalov? Official Reason maybe: Topalov deserves the match more then Kramnik.
Or just slip in a Kramnik-Topa match before Anand match with the then winner. The looser of Kram-Topa can be compensated by a marathon match with ivanchuk or alternatively simply expelled from the cycle for 4 years for no obviuos reason.
Zinger:
>> Yawn. Big deal, Choky runs up his rating by
>> beating up on lesser competition.
Actually, in the last 12 months, Ivanchuk had a better score against 2700 players, compared with Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov.
Ivanchuk +4 -1 =15 (57.5%)
Anand +7 -2 =28 (57 %)
Kramnik +9 -4 =25 (57 %)
Topalov +8 -10 =24 (48 %)
The scores of Anand and Kramnik includes the WC.
Ivanchuk may not be playing in tournaments with high average rating, but when he did meet 2700s he did at least as well as the other top-4 guys. In fact, slightly better. He deserves to be there, not only based on overall performance, but also performance against 2700s.
Actually, the player who runs up his rating against lesser competition is Morozevich. In the last 12 months, he got a negative score against 2700s, but a great plus against lesser players - and I think this is true as well about his performance before the last 12 months.
> Ivanchuk has a history of instability, periods of genius and periods of mediocrity. Not surprised. Do any of the top chess players use sports psychologists ?>
Psychiatrists and MDs you mean.
Ivanchuk seems to be a schizoid personality--his prolonged starring into empty space is common for such types. He may have hallucinations also but keeps quiet about them.
Topalov has a thyroid hyertonia, not quite Basedow-Graves but not far either, hence is high "energy levels", exophtalmia, and thin-longish body structure.
Morozevich is a classical cyclotimic (manic-depressive), unstable emotionally with periodic, swinging moods.
Kramnik, hypophysis-pituitary hypertonia, thus is joint problems and overall weakness. In general his health will only get worse with age, typical evolution for such cases.
Ovidiu--
How about favoring us with a self-diagnosis.
>Ovidiu--How about favoring us with a self-diagnosis.>
well now, I am not that important, Greg, nobody else would care about my health.
Kramnik however is on the road to more annoying health troubles, not cures, in follwing years due to his acromegaly (hypophysis hypertony) and this will impact the chess hierarchy.
Ovidiu, this is great!!!
You seem to talk like you know what you're talking about -- but even if you're faking it, that's still good. Definitely up to something.
D.
If Ivanchuk were Chinese, Daaim would be here repudiating the insinuation that he only gets his Elo against lower rated players.
Ovidiu, this is great!!!
You seem to talk like you know what you're talking about -- but even if you're faking it, that's still good. Definitely up to something.
D.
Posted by: Dimi at October 3, 2007 06:47
Noooooooooooooooooooooo
Ovidiu does not know what he's 'talking' about. I don't know whether he's faking it or genuinely misguided but those pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo is not based on any science at all. I should know as i am a medical doctor as well as psychiatrist. If Ovidiu is medically qualified in any way, then he must surrender his certificates immediately and plea-bargain to avoid prosecution for wilful misrepresentation.
>those pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo is not based on any science at all. I should know as i am a medical doctor as well as psychiatrist...>
Sure, and I am the 15th.
It is medical termninology not "mumbo-jumbo", but it sounds as such to the uneducated.
Do yourself a favour : pick up some books, or use google, and learn what it means. Afterwards post again.
And now for Ovoidiu's diagnosis:
Patient suffers from severe social retardation. He is unable to judge what is socially acceptable to say in different situations. He has a clear addiction to contention and isolationism. There is hope through therapy, but unless he/she is 7, this delay in social manners and interpersonal awareness can be nothing but the abovementioned social retardation.
Mig, could you please find a way to allow blocking some users comments?...somewhat like a spamfilter in an email would.
1.I never engage in 'flaming' and do consider it beneath me to engage in a personal discourse with a fellow who takes obvious pride in the scurrility of his posts.
2.However i will clarify a few points just to avoid even the thinnest veneer of truth and credibility attaching to Ovidiu's wanton 'medical' diagnoses.
3.Any medically qualified person will know that you cannot determine anyone's personality, let alone attempt conclusions like' Ivanchuk seems to be a schizoid personality', without taking a detailed history from the individual and those that know them closely. Personality diagnosis by remote access is a unique skill of quacks and charlartans.
4.Regarding the other allegation 'Topalov has a thyroid hypertonia, not quite Basedow-Graves but not far either...',; this is simply incredible. There is no such entity as thyroid hypertonia.And i doubt Professor Ovidiu has either assessed Mr Topalov's thyroid function (e.g.by blood tests) or his muscle tone (by a neurological examination).
5. ''Morozevich is a classical cyclotimic (i think he meant cyclothymic) manic-depressive'' . Indeed? Yet more incredulity from the learned Ovidiu that doesn't require a great effort to demonstrate it's falsity.
6. As for the bit about Kramnik, that is also false in every particular.I would not bother to explain why hypophysis and pituitary do not need to be conflated into a compound medical term but trust me, there is no such thing as 'hypophysis-pituitary hypertonia'.
7.One of the drawbacks of the democracy called the internet is that all opinions can be aired and the ability to have an opinion (and articulate it) is not contingent upon any demonstraation of knowledge or honesty. In other words, any human can post writings and unfortunately, some less knowledgeable ones do.
8. It is medical termninology not "mumbo-jumbo", but it sounds as such to the uneducated.
Do yourself a favour : pick up some books, or use google, and learn what it means. Afterwards post again.
Posted by: Ovidiu at October 3, 2007 10:23
.....
Yessir. I did better than that. I got postgraduate degrees and have neither the need to purloin medical information from search engines nor misapply them to people i've never met. It's a bad habit and does make you sound erudite at all, just foolish.
Ps: I do hope Mig keeps the tradition of allowing free expression to all, including those who might misuse it.
Some of you guys do not understand chess ratings.
You cannot "run up your rating vs. lower rated opponents... Not unless you play game after game with players 600+ points below you, gaining 1 point for every win. Ivanchuk's rating, Morozevich's rating, and Anand's rating are equally valid... If you don't undestand, study how expected scores and how ratings are calculated.
1.I never engage in 'flaming' and do consider it beneath me to engage in a personal discourse with a fellow who takes obvious pride in the scurrility of his posts.
2.However i will clarify a few points just to avoid even the thinnest veneer of truth and credibility attaching to Ovidiu's wanton 'medical' diagnoses.
3.Any medically qualified person will know that you cannot determine anyone's personality, let alone attempt conclusions like' Ivanchuk seems to be a schizoid personality', without taking a detailed history from the individual and those that know them closely. Personality diagnosis by remote access is a unique skill of quacks and charlartans.
4.Regarding the other allegation 'Topalov has a thyroid hypertonia, not quite Basedow-Graves but not far either...',; this is simply incredible. There is no such entity as thyroid hypertonia.And i doubt Professor Ovidiu has either assessed Mr Topalov's thyroid function (e.g.by blood tests) or his muscle tone (by a neurological examination).
5. ''Morozevich is a classical cyclotimic (i think he meant cyclothymic) manic-depressive'' . Indeed? Yet more incredulity from the learned Ovidiu that doesn't require a great effort to demonstrate it's falsity.
6. As for the bit about Kramnik, that is also false in every particular.I would not bother to explain why hypophysis and pituitary do not need to be conflated into a compound medical term but trust me, there is no such thing as 'hypophysis-pituitary hypertonia'.
7.One of the drawbacks of the democracy called the internet is that all opinions can be aired and the ability to have an opinion (and articulate it) is not contingent upon any demonstraation of knowledge or honesty. In other words, any human can post writings and unfortunately, some less knowledgeable ones do.
8. It is medical termninology not "mumbo-jumbo", but it sounds as such to the uneducated.
Do yourself a favour : pick up some books, or use google, and learn what it means. Afterwards post again.
Posted by: Ovidiu at October 3, 2007 10:23
.....
Yessir. I did better than that. I got postgraduate degrees and have neither the need to purloin medical information from search engines nor misapply them to people i've never met. It's a bad habit and does not make anyone sound erudite at all, just foolish.
Ps: I do hope Mig keeps the tradition of allowing free expression to all, including those who might misuse it.
Jaideep is right on. It was a special moment in chesstory when the two K's, spent after the final match in 1990, walked into Linares 1991 two untouchable giants and were BOTH defeated by Ivanchuk, who ultimately took first prize. New In Chess called it the future of chess because at the time it was not yet known that Ivanchuk was possessed of a glue-and-string nervous system.
The Qh6 game was amazing but check out Kasparov-Ivanchuk Horgen 1995, the "counsel of despair" French game where GK was dealt arguably the most severe beating of his career. As for celebrated chokes, how about Shirov-Ivanchuk Linares 2002? I break into hives just thinking about the final position.
> it is beneath me to engage in a personal discourse with a fellow who takes obvious pride in the scurrility of his posts...>
relax pal, nobody likes being diagnosed, but yes have a look again in your semiology-course and try be not that verbose next time, you almost "flooded" the topic
thyroid hyertonia means "hyperactive thyroid" ( it is true however that in US they use "hypertonia" to mean only "muscular hypertonia" hence your misunderstanding)
And Topalov has a hyperactive thyroid??????? the evidence for this is what?
To all of the above whose medical expertise supersedes their common sense, it's good to know that you're all qualified to drive taxi's.
>And Topalov has a hyperactive thyroid??????? the evidence for this is what?>
In the course of semiology (which you did not read). Have a look at close Topalov pictures and his eyes.
One characteristic symptom of hyperthyroidism
is the protrusion of the eye (exophthalmos), in which the person appears to be as staring or the eyelids tend to pull back from the eye.
I am not saying that he is frank ill with Basedow-Graves but that he has an increased tonus of the thyroid..well..obviously so.
And Topalov has a hyperactive thyroid??????? the evidence for this is what?
Posted by: HardyBerger at October 3, 2007 12:13
~~~~~
Since when do "evidence" and "Topalov" belong in the same sentence? He makes charges without evidence, he can't complain if he should be on the receiving end sometimes.
And the beat goes on...and on...and on...ad infinitum. zzzz, zzzz.
Very interesting -- I'm a great believer in common sense diagnosis.
Obviously, it cannot be taken at 100%, but it can be very useful as a
lead.
Sorry for the off-chess topic, but now that the WC is over and after
the nauseating discussion of who is the real champ I can't resist from
a little bit of diversity. Otherwise all this: Kramnik, Anand, no
Anand, Kramnik, no Kramnik... blah, blah is maddening...
D.
I think chess is great. And fun. Just trying to brighten the mood.
Linares 1991 was the tournament which got me hooked on GM chess. After the first few rounds I read something about Anand beating Karpov in a Karpovian manner and Ivanchuk beating Kasparov in a Kasparov-style attack. It came in a time when the big Ks hardly lost any game at all. I analyzed both games for weeks, didn't understand how they did it, and decided I had to find out.
I do not understand much more today, but I have been a big Ivanchuk fan ever since.
He went quite straight to No. 2 in 1991, but then he lost his Candidates Match against Yusupov, in the tie-break, after Yusupov won to tie in the last round of the regular game. The decisive game was a spectacular blow, a direct mating attack out of a sharp king's indian, quite untypical for the mostly solid Yusupov.
Ever since Ivanchuk has been a top ten player, who showed his talent in amazing wins against now and then. He could not only win against Kasparov, but demolish him.
But starting with the Yusupov match, Ivanchuk lost in a number of critical opportunities to reach his big goal, the World Championship. Sometimes quite poorly -remember his French catastrophe against Ponomariov-, which suggested his nerves were to blame and he never may be able to fulfill his potential.
Let's see how his story will go on.
The next person who's going to exceed 2800, in my opinion, is Kramnik. After that the likes of Carlsen, Radjabov, and Karjakin (not necessarily in that order) shall do the same.
Very interesting observations by Dr Ovidiu
Scientific Face Reading!? however these observations are more of techniques of face reading than science.
There may be some grains of truth in them too?
Nagarajan,
A good friend of mine has "bulging eyes". Every time she visits a new doctor, their first comment is about her thyroid. Every test she has had taken has proven that her thyroid is fine. So...to frankly conclude that someone has an increased tonus of the thyroid based on one symptom is a sure sign of idiocy. If there is a grain of truth is ovidiu's rambling, this is likely not it.
Ocelot:
>> Some of you guys do not understand chess ratings.
>> You cannot "run up your rating vs. lower rated opponents...
Yes, you can run up rating vs lower rated opponents. Of course, the overall rating result is valid - perhaps this is what you meant. But you can also analyze expected scores of a player against different classes of opponents that he has played against, and compare with his actual results against each class. E.g. take all opponents he has played who are 2700s, calculate his expected result against them, and compare with his actual result. Do the same with his 2600s opponents. Etc.
For example, in the last year Morozevich performed lower than his expected score against 2700s opponents, but much higher than his expected score against lower than 2600. Overall, he gets his current rating, because the plus (higher than expected) against lower rateds compensated the negative (lower than expected) against 2700s. In that sense you are right, his current rating is valid considering all his opponents. But still, when you break down the results, he performed lower than his expected score against 2700s, and only compensated it by performing much higher than expected against lower than 2600 opponents.
And by the way, Morozevich's result has that pattern not only for last year, but at least for the last 5 years. I checked.
stendec wrote :
A good friend of mine has "bulging eyes". Every time she visits a new doctor, their first comment is about her thyroid. Every test she has had taken has proven that her thyroid is fine. >
Why does she take so many tests for the thyroid ? Every new doctor is an idiot who doesn't know to read the results of the previous thyroid tests and who sends her to take again new ones, and this based on only one symptom ?
You are making up stuff "stendec", fabulating only to have something to write.
I am a licensed psychiatrist and I won't dare to diagnose without facing Ivanchuk (or any other person) several times. ESPECIALLY, not a personality disorder! Same goes for Fischer, although diagnosis there is easier perhaps. :)
Oleg V.
I am a licensed psychiatrist and I won't dare to diagnose without facing Ivanchuk (or any other person) several times. ESPECIALLY, not a personality disorder! Same goes for Fischer, although diagnosis there is easier perhaps. :)
Oleg V.
ovidiu,
nice try, kiddo. having multiple tests over time is not uncommon. anyway, the point was that claiming to diagnose something on one symptom that is common among many illness and physical variance is not very prudent. for example, you are showing symptoms of watching to much "House, M.D.", but I can't say that is for sure true. after all, you might just be an arrogant prick. it will take more tests to be sure.
Since it seems extremely fashionable these days to put diagnosis on
any nuance of human personality type -- what percentage of the top
chess players would qualify for having a certain degree of Asperger's
syndrome? I can think of a few names, but we're bordering a touchy
subject so I'll refrain going further.
D.
Posted by: Olev Vicky at October 3, 2007 14:48
I am a licensed psychiatrist and I won't dare to diagnose without facing Ivanchuk (or any other person) several times. ESPECIALLY, not a personality disorder! Same goes for Fischer, although diagnosis there is easier perhaps. :)
Oleg V.>
Fischer is frank pranoid-schizophrenic (and you know it)
stendec :
>nice try, kiddo. having multiple tests over time is not uncommon>
I see, but do they send her to make them those test just for fun and based only exophtalmia ? You forgot to tell us.
Good to know what Topa's real medical condition is...I just thought he'd just been castrated as a child by his manager who wanted to keep him docile and dependent (hence the high voice and constant eyes-wide-open surprised expression on his face). Just goes to show what I know. ;-)
I wouldn't count Kirsan out just yet--at least, without seeing video of his execution posted on YouTube. Kirsan seems to have many political lives. Rumors of his fall from power have occurred before, with some regularity. However, Putin seems to like him, there is no revolt or independence movement in Kalmykia, and so he stays in power....
Ivanchuk could well be the next one to top 2800, although I do think that he'll need to do so before his next invitation to a Super GM event.
Ivanchuk's nerves may be getting stronger, simply because he may be becoming a bit inured, thanks to nearly constant Chess activity. That said, while he may be able to get respectable, and even good results, against his fellow Top 10 players, if he did get the right to play in a world Championship Match (or some high-stakes Quasi-Match, such as the last rounds of the Chess World Cup) I still expect him to fold. Part of the reason for Chukky's resurgence is that he seems to have pretty much given up his ambitions to become World Champion.
gg,
Well... since Wang Yue is 2703 and Bu Xiangzhi is 2692 I suppose we know where they got their points from... from 2400s according to you. Have you followed chess lately?
Good to know what Topa's real medical condition is...I just thought he'd just been castrated as a child by his manager who wanted to keep him docile and dependent (hence the high voice and constant eyes-wide-open surprised expression on his face). Just goes to show what I know. ;-)
Now you know. But he ain't castrated, he would play Caro-Kann not Najdorf if he were.
Hendrick,
"Overall, he gets his current rating, because the plus (higher than expected) against lower rateds compensated the negative (lower than expected) against 2700s. In that sense you are right, his current rating is valid considering all his opponents"
I think my point is that his rating would be valid even if he hadn't played those players rated above 2700. Any two given chess ratings in the same system are equally valid (with the exception of ratings not established because of an insufficient # of games, or fixed matches). Or perhaps I should say equally "valid". We may be arguing over semantics- I think "over-performing" has a significantly different meaning than "running up". My comments were directed against certain individuals who want it to appear as if Moro gets his rating, in effect, by "cheating" the system. My point is that arriving at a rating of 2755 by playing all 2800 players has the same "merit"- if such a thing exists at all- as arriving at a rating of 2755 by playing all 2600 players (both players should be considered the same strength, as far as ratings are able to indicate this).
Of course this assumes a rating system that is not fundamentally flawed. Sonas has pointed out certain deficiencies in the FIDE ratings, for instance he once wrote an article in which he claimed that the FIDE ratings actually penalize players who play with mostly with players below their rating...
Are you Ovidiu, DDS, PhD?
The FIDE Rating system isn't really flawed. It is a good reflection of past results. However, people wish to use ELO ratings to make predictions about future results. ELO is less effective at predicting how players will perform at particular events. Top level Round Robin events have a non-random sample of players (i.e. All of the participants are Elite players). Given that bit of knowledge, it is possible to refine predictions about results, by using ELO rating data as a starting point, but also to apply our knowedge about how a certain player seems to perform in analogous situations.
ELO cannot predict psychological or stylistic manifestations which influence a particular player's results.
So, current ELO ratings tells us that both Morozevich and Ivanchuk are very strong players, but empirical data pertaining to a player's performance history can provide the basis for more accurate preditions. we would expect Moro to continue his pattern of underperforming in Elite tournaments (San Luis 2005 being an exception, apparently), while Ivanchuk will have uneven results, generally holding his own, but tending to grossly underperform in high pressure, high stakes situations.
I don't like Topalov, but to me it looks like Ovidiu is a vet remotely diagnosing frogs.
I doubt that Ivanchuk has a career strategy to build up his rating, by eschewing Top Events, while scoring big in Medium Category (XV--XVIII) tournaments. If ivanchuk was given invitations to all of the Elite events, he would play in those more frequently, and in rather fewer of the mid-level tournaments. But, he evidently hasn't been given the invitations. Let's face it: a player from one of the former Soviet states will, ratings being equal, have a harder time earning invitations than will some top GM from Western Europe. Likewise, youth is favored over (relative) old. There is not much novelty in having Ivanchuk play in elite events. Experience indicates that he is likely to finish in the middle. So, other factors, aside from rating, or even apart from chess results, will influence who gets the prime (and lucrative) invitations.
The good news is that based on his recent excellent form, his rating is now 2nd highest--high enough to "demand" invitations to just about any Elite event. Moreover, since Ivanchuk seems to possibly be breaking out of old patterns (by achieving a career best in rating), he is rebranding himself in a way, and that increases the novelty of inviting him....
================================================
"Well... since Wang Yue is 2703 and Bu Xiangzhi is 2692 I suppose we know where they got their points from... from 2400s according to you. Have you followed chess lately?"
Wang Yue is the first Chinese to crack the 2700 barrier. Given ratings inflation, it had to happen sooner or later.
Both Wang Yue and Bu earned some of their points gain from the Scheveningen Style events against the Russians (roughly of equal rating), and against the British (who were significantly lower rated than the Chinese team). It should be noted that Wang Hao (2643 rating, born in 1989) had perhaps the most impressive result among the members of the Chinese team.
Only time will tell if they, along with some other up and coming Chinese players, will make it to the Top 10.
But, they are for real. Wang Hao is ranked #8 among the Juniors, while Wang Yue (born in 1987) is ranked #3, just behind Magnus. Overall, Wang Yue is ranked 22nd, while Bu is 25th. In any case, they proved their mettle by eking out a win against the Russian men, who are never a pushover.
I get the sense that Bu and Wang Yue might be at the Crest of good results, and I would not be surprised to see them plataeu for a while, or even lose back 20-30 ratings points.
The next step is for Bu or Wang Yue to be given invitations to a Wijk aan Zee or Sofia type event.
All in favor of having Ovidiu take his self-serving and omniscient blogging somewhere else say aye. AYE!!!!! All opposed say ney... ... ... OK then, it's unanimous, the ayes have it. So long Ovidiu and good ridd... er, good luck.
Also, to the one whose sensitive ego (you know who you are) apparently can't stand up to some of the more forthright descriptions in life, I didn't know I was dealing with an Alice.
Ocelot,
Actually my point is that if Morozevich does not play against 2700s, and only against 2600s, his rating might be even higher than it is now, because he overperformed hugely against players lower than 2700 (way above his expected score against them according to the Elo formula). But his results against 2700s pushed it down a little. However his final rating is still pretty high because the extent he overperformed against 2600s and 2500s more than compensated his negative rating change against 2700s.
On the other hand, suppose Morozevich played exclusively against 2700 players, and not (or significantly less) against lower rateds, his rating might be lower than it is now, at least based on his performance so far. In the last 5 years he performed below his expected score, when playing against 2700s.
Check out the FIDE rating record on the official site, it has the plus and minus for each game he played, according to the expected score against each opponent. Check his cumulative rating change against 2700 players he has played against. It is negative, at least for the last 5 years - I'd guess the pattern applies even before that as well, though I only checked the last 5 years.
It is possible to "run up your rating vs. lower rated opponents" if you consistently score more than your expected performance against them. As pointed out, the resulting rating will reflect this ability to score highly against lower rated players. However, if you rarely play anyone with a similar or higher rating, then this rating may not reflect your real ability. Let me see if I can explain this without exhibiting any anti-Chinese basis :-)
For example, consider players like Larsen (in his prime) and Morozevich, extremely good at beating average and good GMs, but who tend to lose a lot of games against their fellow super GMs (with the odd surprise victory, but not enough to make up).
Say for the sake of argument that Morozevich regularly achieves 2800 performances against opponents in the 2600-2650 range, but only 2700 performances against opponents in the 2750-2800 range. If he only plays against 2600+, his rating would be 2800. If he only plays against 2750+, his rating would be 2700. A more accurate rating would probably be somewhere in the middle, so if he only played against 2600+ and never played against 2750+, his rating of 2800 would be overstated by something like 50 points.
So it is possible (in theory - I'm not claiming that anyone is doing this deliberately) to obtain an exaggerated rating by repeatedly beating lower rated opponents and avoiding stronger opponents.
There's also a related but different issue - if a gifted young player does not get enough experience against stronger opponents, he (or she) will not be stretched and will not learn how to win against the best, even though they get very good results against weaker opponents.
So they will be are unable to play as well against strong opponents as their ratings would suggest; they had the talent to do so, but it was not properly developed.
Ocelot:
"My point is that arriving at a rating of 2755 by playing all 2800 players has the same "merit" ... as arriving at a rating of 2755 by playing all 2600 players.
Yes, both have the same merit, __ IF __ he achieved the same rating performance against both groups. I understand what you mean. Getting a 2700 performance against 2800s is equal to getting 2700 performance against 2600s. Of course. As long as you get the same rating performance, they are equal.
But that was not the case here.
Morozevich does NOT have the same rating performance against 2700 compared with against 2500 - 2600 opponents.
Try to calculate his (hypothetical) rating by only taking his results against 2700 opponents in the last 5 years into account (ignoring his games against others; suppose he only plays 2700 people, and nobody else). Plug in those result into the Elo formula. You will see his performance score is lower than expected for his current rating.
Now do the same for the other case, by only taking his 2500-2600 opponents into account, and plug his results into the Elo formula. You will see his performance is higher then his actual current rating.
So what happens with Morozevich is that against 2500-2600 opponents he got 2800 performance, but against 2700 opponents he got just around 2700 (perhaps slightly lower). The Fide system takes all result into account, so his final rating is around 2750. But he has NOT achieved equal performance rating for both groups of opponents.
This is not to say he is cheating. After all, getting huge results against 2600 rateds is no mean feat, and deserves to be rewarded.
DOug,
Yes that's exactly what I meant.
The Fide rating is valid, if we consider a player's cumulative result against all opponents. However, when we want to make more refined analysis of his performance against different groups, we might see the same player producing different performance levels.
As for Bu Xiangzhi and Wang Yue, well their results came about after playing 2600 and 2500 rateds (even the Russians they recently played are 2600 rateds). If course this is not their fault. It only reflects the fact they haven't been invited to elite events yet. And they perform as well as they can against 2600 rated players.
What will happen if Bu or Wang plays more 2700 players? Who knows. It would be interesting to see.
Same as Ivanchuk. The fact that he might not have as many invitations to elite events to play 2700 opponents is not his fault. However in his case, he did get the chance to play about 20 games against 2700 players in the past year, with a rating performance that more or less justifies his current rating.
Wang and Bu were 2600+ rated when they played Russian and British opponents. They did better than their then rating suggested thus increasing their ratings to circa 2700.
It is not as if they chose to play opponents significantly lower-rated players just to gain rating points. They did not select their opponents.
For the record, the Russians had ratings of 2735,2689,2663,2654 & 2650 during play. Against the more illustrious of British opponents, Wang Yue drew his games with Adams (2724) and Short (2683)while Bu drew Adams and lost to Short. It is not the fault of the Chinese if the British could not or did not field more 2700 standard players. At least the 2500+ British players should be thankful for the opportunity to play the strong 2600+ Chinese players. btw Wang and Bu had old ratings of 2696 and 2685 respectively. (Source:TWIC)
How well they can do against 2700+ opponents is something we have to wait to find out if and when the opportunity arises for them to face such opponents regularly.
The Chinese are probably strong enough to hold draws but not enough to win against 2700-2740 rated players. Against the Top 10, they can only hope to draw but is likely to lose most of these games.
The Chinese have not been able to crack the code when it comes to breaking into the Top 10. They have not found the missing ingredient. Next year's Olympiad should see a Chinese team wholly made up of circa 2700 players. The question would then be whether they would be good enough to challenge for gold.
Professor Ovidiu, i dont know about the other two, but i read in chessbase and elsewhere also, that Kramnik has rheumatoid arthritis. Never heard any of the diseases that you mentioned being associated with him.
The Chinese played against the best British players, and won impressively. So the British have been surpassed.
The match against Russia is a little different.
And it's interesting to speculate on the implications.
The Chinese didn't play against the best Russian team, but they did play against the best younger (under 25) generation of Russians, except Grischuk. Considering that the chinese players are also mostly under 25, it could be seen as a match between the best younger players of China vs Russia. Since the Chinese won, we could expect that in the future they could compete against the best.
It is interesting to follow the performance of these 2 groups of young players.
We don't know whether Bu or Wang would perform consistently well against 2700+ players. But the same applies to the best of the younger Russians, like Jakovenko or Alekseev, who haven't played that much against 2700+ either. From the little they played against 2700+ in the past year, Jakovenko got +1-3=4, and Alekseev +1-2=8. Compare with Bu (+2-3=2) and Wang (+0-0=2). All of them still not (yet) impressive against 2700+, but in any case the data is not enough.
It would be interesting to follow and compare the development of the younger (under 25) players of Russia and China. Except for Grischuk, they seem to be more or less equal.
Funny to see people babbling on about ratings and whether one deserves the rating one has. Rating is always right, because it is an implication of one's games. It doesn't make a difference whether you played against 2200s or 2600s. Based on the calculation rules the rating is always right. It is another question if the rating really reflects one's strength, but even in that sense I'd say that it is a pretty good indicator - not absolute, but still pretty good. The top guys have met each other so many times over the years that if there's a little interval in the meetings it makes no difference - they all deserve their places on the list.
When it comes to Ivanchuk and Moro, who cares if their rating is 2780 or 2750 or 2720. If you play against them you play against THE GUY with THE NAME and the rating is of no importance. For instance when Anand plays Ivanchuk I don't think he looks at Ivanchuk's rating and thinks that 'gee, on the last list his rating was 15 pts higher - he must be weaker now'. That would be just absurd.
And let us remember Topalov's silly comments about Kramnik being in a lower class when Topa outrated him by 70 pts after Kramnik's bad performances due to an illness. Topa forgot that he was facing the GUY with the NAME KRAMNIK and the 70 pts in between was of no consequence. Kramnik was still not on top of his game and yet he was able to dispose of the supposed #1 (only by rating) player in the world.
Mr X,
You first stated rating is "always right" and it is a "pretty good indicator". But then you gave an example (Kramnik vs Topalov) where it is not a good indicator :-).
Rating is an indicator of overall performance against every opponent. It is deserved, as far as overall performance is concerned. However, it does not indicate the performance against a particular opponent (or a particular group). According to their ratings, Kasparov's score against Shirov must be around 65%, but the actual score is more like 75%. Rating alone does not indicate this particular actual score.
Thanks to DOug, edfong, hendrick, Mr. X, we finally have a very sensible discussion about the evolution of Chinese talent. All have made excellent points. Back in July, we were debating the last rating list and a few Daily Dirt bloggers kept droning on about Chinese players being untested because they have primarily crusher weaker players (if interested, search the Daily Dirt on "july ratings"). Of course, this debate occurred before China beat Russia and England in matches and before Chinese players won some strong tournaments. What a difference a few months make!
hendrik, glad you noticed the contradiction and to me it seems you also got the gist of it all. Ratings do indicate something, but to look who's got 2750 and who's got 2752 is silly. In a single games even an ELO difference of 50 pts doesn't make the other a huge favorite. And in 1 on 1 competition the concept of 'awkward opponent' can also distort the expectancy from the ELO difference...
And about Ivanchuk...he's been over 2700 for ages..already in 1991 he was #2. I think ELO should not matter in cases like his. If organizers didn't invite him, cos he was in low 2700s then the organizers were dumb and slaves to the ELO.
He's back again!
"Ivanchuk seems to be a schizoid personality--his prolonged starring into empty space is common for such types. He may have hallucinations also but keeps quiet about them."
"Topalov has a thyroid hyertonia, not quite Basedow-Graves but not far either..."
"Morozevich is a classical cyclotimic (manic-depressive)..."
"Kramnik, hypophysis-pituitary hypertonia...."
..............
"Ovidiu took an extened vacation to the planet Neptune one month ago, for the duration of the Kramnik-Topalov match. That explains his last comment, in case anyone was wondering."
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at November 25, 2006 15:35
"He's back from Neptune??"
Posted by: Clubfoot at November 25, 2006 16:19
"I just checked and his IP definitely traces to Neptune."
Posted by: Mig at November 25, 2006 16:23
Ovidiu wrote: "Ivanchuk seems to be a schizoid personality--his prolonged staring into empty space is common for such types. He may have hallucinations also but keeps quiet about them"
Can we just pause to savour that last sentence? Fair play to Ivanchuk for not disturbing the other players with his hallucinations. He's a real trouper.
Incidentally, on the subject of staring off into space and hallucinating, was it Tal who spent significant time during a game trying to figure out how to extricate an elephant from some unlikely situation? (Or was it Bronstein?...).
I think it was Tal and a hippopotamus.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139685
Again, I can't help but feel there is a lack of fundamental understanding about ratings and what they mean...
Hendrick wrote:
"As for Bu Xiangzhi and Wang Yue, well their results came about after playing 2600 and 2500 rateds (even the Russians they recently played are 2600 rateds). If course this is not their fault. It only reflects the fact they haven't been invited to elite events yet. And they perform as well as they can against 2600 rated players."
There is no "fault" to speak of here. If they gained there rating by playing 2600's, it would have the same validity (again read "merit") as if they had gained them playing 2700's.
If a player obtained the same rating as Bu and Wang and got their ratings by playing 2700's, would we say "but it is not their fault"? Then it is entirely illogical to say the same in this case...
Another commment by Hendrik, concerning Ivanchuk:
"However in his case, he did get the chance to play about 20 games against 2700 players in the past year, with a rating performance that more or less justifies his current rating."
Where does the notion that one has to play against players of one's own rating level to "justify" their rating come from? I can only feel this stems from a lack of understanding about ratings. Crushing 2600's by such a margin that your rating jumps well into the 2700's is "justification" enough. The results do not get more valid when your opponents change rating classes.
Again: if Morozevich, Wang, or any other player gets his rating because he performs higher than expected against lower rated players, it has the same validity, or justification, or merit, (or whatever), as a player who has normal results against both his rating range and ranges above and below. Or, a player who performs better against higher rated opponents, but cannot beat lower rated opponents as often as his rating would indicate. But with these players, one never hears "they need to justify their rating by crushing the lower rateds..."
Again, all this assumes that the rating system is "fundamentaly " sound...
Ocelot asked:
"Where does the notion that one has to play against players of one's own rating level to "justify" their rating come from?"
Well I don't know where in my email did you read me writing: a player HAS to play against his own rating ... to JUSTIFY ... . bla bla bla.
Also, where did I say: their ratings are not "valid"?
I am afraid there's a fundamental lack of understanding of what I actually said :-).
As I already said (more than once), the rating is valid, as far as overall result is concerned, which is what the ratings are supposed to measure.
My purpose is to go further than just the overall rating. If we want to go further into analyzing a player's characteristics, we should check the details. For example, if we want to predict his rating in a specific tournament, we should not only see his rating, but how he usually performs against players from that particular group.
The point of this analysis is not to show the rating is not valid, but to get more insight on the characteristics of a player.
For instance, Morozevich underperforms when plays 2700+. So if we want to predict his result in the last World Championship, we cannot just plug in his latest Elo, and see the expected value, because for that particular group of 2700+ players, he often performs under his rating. And that's exactly what happened. You cannot predict his actual result using just his rating, which will predict a better result than what he got. But using my analysis, we get an expected value much closer to his actual score.
Another example: Bu, or Wang. Sure, their rating is valid as a measure of performance so far. However, since they have mostly played 2500-2600, we cannot use this rating to PREDICT their future results when they got the chance to regularly play 2700+ players. That was my point.
I will say it again, in case someone has a lack of reading ability: I never made a point about justification or validity, whether a rating is valid, less valid, more valid, even more valid, slightly more valid, of whatever related to validity. You are the one who somehow reads "non-validity" in my emails and keep arguing against a ghost.
My whole purpose is to analyse in more detail a player's characteristics, and to be able to predict more precisely his results against certain group of opponents. To go beyond the rating (which is valid for overall performance), into the details. For the purpose of refined analysis, just the one rating number is not enough, you should break it down further. The overall rating produces a good enough expected score when he plays opponents similar to his previous opponents on which the rating is based, but not necessarily a good predictor when he is against a particular opponent, or a specific group of opponents (e.g. in a tournament with all 2700+).
>For instance, Morozevich underperforms when plays 2700+. So if we want to predict his result in the last World Championship, we cannot just plug in his latest Elo, and see the expected value, because for that particular group of 2700+ players, he often performs under his rating. And that's exactly what happened. You cannot predict his actual result using just his rating>
You can try plot his relative rating against the ELO scale and you will get for Moro , say, 2800 when playing the 2500-2600 group, 2700 for the 2600-2700 interval, and 2670 when playing the +2700 guys
Then, function of his tournament schedule (number of players from each group he will in a season ) you can add percentual weights and end finding (predict) the final rating which will appear in the next ELO list Ef= w1*2800 +w2*2700+w2*2670
And it would interesting to know this "relative-Elo rating distribution" for each player. I guess that Sonas does this routinely (MS-Excel would be enough) when he makes predictions.
Actually, I tried to do this "rating distribution" for the top players. In most cases, like Anand or Ivanchuk, they actually perform more or less according to their rating across all groups of opponents. Morozevich is one of the more extreme exception.
>Actually, I tried to do this "rating distribution" for the top players... Morozevich is one of the more extreme exception.>
Without doing the math, my perception is that Kaspy was also of this kind, not as much as Moro of course
Mathematically this can be found by comparing the variance of their distributions while setting 1 for all "w". Doing so would give an average ELO different than the official and one independent of the "biased" tournament choices of the player, as when playing mostly low-rated and thus getting
an official ELO higher than the "real" one.
Actually, I don't think Kasparov's case is the same, especially in the 1990s, when he smashed everybody, no matter what rating class. For example, his result in the Russian Superfinal 2004 is typical, more or less according to his expected rating: +2-0=2 against 2700+ and +3-0=2 against the rest.
I think there may be a slight communication problem here.
As I understand him, ocelot is interpreting the Elo rating narrowly, as a number representing a player's previous results. Assuming that a player's rating is correctly calculated, then there can be no argument as to whether it is accurate.
While this is entirely correct, and from what I understand was the original purpose of the Elo system, it is not how ratings are generally interpreted in the chess world. Ratings are often used to assess the relative strengths of players, for seedings, and for predicting results. Super GMs agonise over losing a few rating points, even though this is statistically insignificant.
Although this is strictly speaking a misuse of the Elo rating, it is IMHO far too deeply entrenched in the chess world to be eradicated.
As I understand him, hendrik is using this generally accepted interpretation (and he is certainly not alone in this!)
So, for ocelot, Morozevich's rating of 2755 is correct, because that's what his results are. hendrick's point is that he usually does not achieve a 2755 performance against opponents rated 2700+.
theorist, it was indeed Tal who spent the best part of an hour thinking how to rescue a hippo before playing a sacrifice that he had only analysed comparatively briefly.
Bronstein did spend 18 minutes in a USSR Championship game before deciding to answer 1.e4 with 1...c5 (and no less than 70 minutes on the first six moves!)
Hendrik - just as there have been some players who "overperform" when playing weaker players, there should also be players who would have higher ratings when playing stronger players--did you happen to notice any when you crunched your numbers? I would think that Gelfand and Leko would be likely to do this.
"ovidiu,
nice try, kiddo. having multiple tests over time is not uncommon. anyway, the point was that claiming to diagnose something on one symptom that is common among many illness and physical variance is not very prudent. for example, you are showing symptoms of watching to much "House, M.D.", but I can't say that is for sure true. after all, you might just be an arrogant prick. it will take more tests to be sure."
Haahahha.....nicely done stendec!