When Ivanchuk scraped bottom with -4 at MTel in May (-5 until a last-round win), there was much talk about how exhausted he was, how he'd been playing too much and needed a break, etc. He certainly had been playing a remarkable amount, but I tried to point out that 1) it wasn't much more than he always seems to be playing these days and 2) his results fluctuate wildly without any apparent correlation to frequency. Now, without a break after MTel, squeezing in two rapid events, Ivanchuk is leading the nearly as strong Bazna tournament, +3 undefeated after six of 10 rounds for a 2900 performance rating. Exhausted!
True, two of his wins have come against the tail-ending local, Nisipeanu, but it's still quite a turnaround. Fellow 40-something Boris Gelfand is in second place a half-point back. Then comes Shirov on +1. This tournament could be part of a senior tour if it weren't for Radjabov, the only player in the field under 30. He's played all draws so far. Kamsky is having a very rough time of it with three losses without a victory to sit in last place with Nisipeanu. He's lost twice to Shirov, though neither was as ugly as his hanging a rook to Ivanchuk in the fifth round. It was an unusual tactic, at least, coming soon to the back-rank section of your next tactics book.
I don't remember where I read this, but Ivanchuk said that his match victory against Navara was most welcome to restore confidence in his chess. Is this Chucky's approach? If you have sort of a burnout for top-level classical time controls, use rapid chess and a somewhat weaker opponent for therapy !?
But obviously there is no masterplan behind: Invitations come months in advance, he gets plenty and seems to accept any/all of them. Has he ever declined an invitation? That is, for reasons other than "sorry, I am already committed elsewhere" ... .
I was never very worried for Ivanchuk - he's roughly 2750 +/- 50 in "strength" - and his performances vary even more.
What I do worry about, are FIDE's rules for rating reporting. Here are some observations regarding the upcoming July 2009 list, the rumours (that I've contributed strongly to) that this list might be one of two used for picking the rating qualifier for the next Candidate event, plus FIDE's arcaic rules for rating reporting (which btw. are heavily inconsistant as far as the Handbook is considered, but that's an even longer story):
1) MTel finished May 23rd, but so far it's not submitted for rating on the July 2009 list. (Will it be? Why isn't it?)
2) Poikovsky finished June 12th, and it's not submitted for the July 2009 list yet. (Will it be? Why isn't it?)
3) Assume the organizer(s) can delay the rating report for up to 60 days - at will - with no questions asked and no sanctions.
4) Assume July 2009 and January 2010 will be used to select the two rating qualifiers for the Candidate event - and that there will be at least one (1) list (and possibly two, in September and November, if FIDE increases the list frequency as "decided" in Dresden) inbetween those two counting lists.
5) Assume that Aronian (very likely) and Radjabov (likely, but not obvious - Gashimov, Grischuk and Wang Yue are theoretical alternatives) qualify from the Grand Prix.
Now, depending on the _choice_ of these two organizers (one in Bulgaria, one in Russia), the potentially first of two counting lists can look like this:
A) Current registered events
[1 Topalov 2812]
[2 Anand 2788,3]
3 Aronian** 2768,4
4 Carlsen 2764,6
5 Jakovenko 2759,5
6 Kramnik 2759
7 Radjabov* 2756
8 Leko 2755,9
9 Morozevich 2751
10 Shirov 2747,3
11 Svidler 2738,6
12 Wang Yue 2738
13 Grischuk 2733
14 Gashimov 2730
B) Only MTel submitted/rated:
[1 Topalov 2812,8]
[2 Anand 2788,3]
3 Carlsen 2772,4
4 Aronian** 2768,4
5 Shirov 2763,9
6 Jakovenko 2759,5
7 Kramnik 2759
8 Radjabov* 2756
9 Leko 2755,9
10 Morozevich 2751
11 Svidler 2738,6
12 Wang Yue 2735,8
13 Grischuk 2733
14 Gashimov 2730
C) Only Poikovsky submitted/rated:
[1 Topalov 2812]
[2 Anand 2788,3]
3 Aronian** 2768,4
4 Carlsen 2764,6
5 Jakovenko 2759,5
6 Kramnik 2759
7 Radjabov* 2756
8 Leko 2755,9
9 Morozevich 2751
10 Gashimov 2740
xx Shirov 2715,3
D) Both submitted/rated:
[1 Topalov 2812,8]
[2 Anand 2788,3]
3 Carlsen 2772,4
4 Aronian** 2768,4
5 Jakovenko 2759,5
6 Kramnik 2759
7 Radjabov* 2756
8 Leko 2755,9
9 Morozevich 2751
10 Gashimov 2740
11 Svidler 2738,6
12 Wang Yue 2735,8
13 Grischuk 2733
14 Shirov 2731,9
The relevant differences between these 4 lists, are (IMHO)
a) the gap between Carlsen and Jakovenko/Kramnik/Leko etc.
b) whether Shirov might be within striking distance
c) whether Gashimov might be within striking distance
Carlsen (2765, 2772, 2772, 2772)
Shirov (2747, 2764, 2715, 2732)
Gashimov (2730, 2740, 2740, 2740)
Of course, nobody loses (gets rid of) their rating gains or losses by a rating delay, but "temporarily low" ratings in October (or September/November) can be "repaired" for the
January list, and similar "convenient" delays might take place regarding the January 2010 list, too - with various interesting effects (including an event where player X loses rating and simultaneously delaying one where the same player gains rating).
With current rules for rating reporting, even for super-gm events where everyone knows the results and choices for when an event is rated might prove decisive for who gets to fight for the World Championship title, FIDE implicitly allows non-neutral, affected 3rd-parties to manipulate the outcome.
My suggestion is that FIDE _actively_ should obtain the necessary rating data for all "top players" (top 30, top 50, top 100, depending on where one wants to draw the line) that might be seriously affected by in which list a finished event eventually is counted in.
For events like MTel or Poikovsky where "everyone" knows every detail already - PGNs are readily available for every game played there, I see absolutely no reason why FIDE should leave the choice of whether these events are included now or later to the events' (in this case, Bulgarian and Russian) organizers. Frankly I find that situation and the system that allows it rather absurd.
This is yet another area in which FIDE lacks a proper and professional system - despite ratings in general being one of the most well-functioning things within FIDE (to some degree, that's more a testimony to how sad the state of affairs is in other areas).
PS! The current Bazna event probably finishes too late to be submitted AND rated for the July list, but if it would be, it would simply open (just) another can of worms...
Correction, the summary of differences should look like this:
Carlsen (2765, 2772, 2765, 2772)
Shirov (2747, 2764, 2715, 2732)
Gashimov (2730, 2730, 2740, 2740)
In particular Shirov's 4 possible July 2009 ratings demonstrate how absurd the current rules are.
Another correction:
Somehow I left out Gelfand (2755,2) in the above, and as we speak, the 40 year old is gaining more rating points in the Bazna event.
Ivanchuk had a gorgeous finish today, in his game vs. Shirov. Truly beautiful!
The only chance for Ivanchuk to qualify to the Candidates, is as the organizer's nominee...
or as the World Cup winner, of course - how could I forget? :o)
Hey frogbert , didnt you said that you were going to open a new site or something with new content?
I mean , why didnt you post that at least on the ¨FIDE ill comunication¨ thread?
The way you post it makes the content off topic for no reason ...
Dont get me wrong , i have nothing against the information you posted , but it seems a bit arrogant to unload it any place you like , just an opinion.
"but it seems a bit arrogant to unload it any place you like , just an opinion."
Congratulations on your new moderator job, Manu!
Seriously - yes, I'm very arrogant, so I spoke about an issue that I care for in the most recent dirt-thread. My apologies.
I guess you will appreciate that I'm not going to make an account of the hundreds of posts with repeated quarreling and endless repetitions of Kramnik/Topalov issues that you have been over in every relevant and (mostly) irrelevant thread on the Dirt, for the last 12 months. Don't get me wrong, but the way I deal with those posts of yours, is simply to ignore them - all of them. But that's just my opinion - and a minor tip that you might find useful.
Anyway, what do YOU consider to be the reason why MTel hasn't been submitted for rating yet, Manu?
(Personally I think that topic is a bit more important than your regular cock-fights around here, irrespective of who you're fighting.)
my comment will probally sink in forgetness after the iminent fight coming, but anyway...
as there are very bad tournament sites around, I think its fair to praise a good one, as the bazna tourney is. very easy to navigate and find info, nice content, etc.
in a offtopic note: did you see that motylev broke the 2700 barrier? his performance in poikovsky was remarkable and brought him nice fruits
Of course, Shirov blundered badly to lose his game against Ivanchuk today, but Ivanchuk deserves all praise for pushing the game to the very end despite its obviously very drawn status. Strange things happen, as Shirov can sadly testify.
Shirov could have assured the draw with 67...g3 instead of blundering with 67...Bh7???
I think this rating list discussion is placing the emphasis on the wrong "problem"...
If you are going to use ratings for invitations (not a great practice IMHO), then you still have to realize that they are not "accurate" to the degree that they are being used -- i.e. hair-splitting.
FIDE ratings used to be capped at 5 pt intervals (i.e. 2705, 2710, 2715) and this at least gave the appearance that everyone understodd that within a certain number of points, the player performances were equivalent.
FIDE switched to single digit differences (i.e. 2701, 2702, 2703, 2704) and this gives the appearance that the ratings are super-accurate.
But they are not.
They are not for a number of reasons, including:
1. Variability of player performance
2. Smallest amount of "strength" that is reflected by performance (call this the quantum of playing strength if you will)
3. Timing of results
4. The fact that players are not forced to play -- they can "sit" on their ratings if they wish
# 1 tells us that a 2750 may fluctuate around 2720-2770 and he's still the same player.
# 2 tells us that a a 2720 rating and a 2725 rating and a 2730 rating may all be the same type of player -- *if* the smallest quantum of strength that can be measured is, say, 20 pts.
# 3 tells us that player ratings depend on the timeliness of rating submissions
# 4 tells us that players can game the system by choosing when or where or against whom or even if they wish to play. A player on a rating peak can sit and thereby lock in an invite.
So, all these discussions about "gee, if they only could have the reports sent in faster" miss the point. The point is that the top 10 or so are all roughtly the same...and they minor fluctuations are only so much Brownian motion in terms of the pecking order. The only real difference might be that Carlsen is getting stronger...vs. the pack.
The problem becomes if you have 15 or so players who "deserve" an invite but you can only pick 10 and you use these (essentially equivalent) ratings, then all you are doing is picking names out of a hat and putting a nice cover story on it that makes it look like it is fair or based on competition.
Either all spots should be derived from qualifying tournaments...or folks need to realize that it is essentially a lottery.
You are indeed arrogant , look how agressive is your answer.
And you didnt answer my questions, what happened with you having your own blog or something?
I only suggested that you should unload your great knowledge on a different thread , you yourself made claims in the past about being on topic or not.
Take it easy ,be a good frog.
I watched the Ivanchuk-Shirov endgame, and what went on starting with Ivanchuk's amazing g4: Beautiful, indeed.
Ivanchuk gave his next to last pawn, giving Shirov four dangerous-looking passers. At first glance it looked suicidal. But after Ivanchuk had pushed his last pawn to h6, the threat of Nf6 forced Shirov's king to watch his back. So he couldn't support his three connected passers the way he wanted to. Utilizing his position to the max, one by one Ivanchuk managed to collect all four pawns. He finished it off in style with giving up his last pawn to force a surprise mate with B+N vs B !
It is a mistery to me how 15.Rc3 can be a novelty , it was the first move i thought about and im just a patzer.
"The point is that the top 10 or so are all roughtly the same...and they minor fluctuations are only so much Brownian motion in terms of the pecking order. The only real difference might be that Carlsen is getting stronger...vs. the pack"
The rating list shows rather well the fact that for example Anand and Topalov are clearly better than Morozevich and Jakovenko. In any case I think using rating for qualification only should be done if the rules are very clear from the beginning, and even then it may be a bad idea.
"this gives the appearance that the ratings are super-accurate.
But they are not."
Many good points, chesspride - and I agree to more or less all of them, including the one quoted above.
"The point is that the top 10 or so are all roughtly the same...and they minor fluctuations are only so much Brownian motion in terms of the pecking order."
Yep, that is also true. However:
"all these discussions about "gee, if they only could have the reports sent in faster" miss the point."
That comment misses at least MY point. It's NOT about sending in rating reports faster, it's about WHO gets to decide WHICH EVENTS get to count in a rating list or not.
Your points emphasize that selecting some out of a group where rating differences are within 15-20 maybe 30 rating points isn't perfectly fair from the outset, because performances (and hence ratings) do vary over time - and the group of players currently rated 2750-2770 are basically "equally" strong. And I DO agree with that.
HOWEVER, the problem I point to, is that it suddenly isn't those NATURAL variations that end up deciding matters (if there aren't players that CLEARLY stand out from the other top 10 players - and I argue that even Topalov is "only" on a good strike). When FIDE's rules are such that a couple ORGANIZERS which clearly can have THEIR OWN AGENDAS end up deciding matters, then we're looking at a systemic (and democratic) problem. THAT is my concern and the point I was making.
On a different note: having ratings decide qualification shouldn't much less fair than having tournaments/events decide qualification - the argument about variations in performances apply as much in that case as for the ratings. After all, ratings are simply a measure of past results, and instead of selecting one single event to decide qualification, using ratings means that the effect of chance and random variations is REDUCED rather than INCREASED, since one good or one bad event no longer isn't all it takes to make it or blow it. But I guess that's a matter of taste and opinion more than anything else. :o)
"In any case I think using rating for qualification only should be done if the rules are very clear from the beginning"
I agree, and part of what should be clear in those rules also includes WHEN tournaments will be rated - it shouldn't be left to "whims" (or well-considered choices) of the organizers/federations.
As it is, we don't even know for sure which rating list(s) will count for this qualification, and that's part of the problem too.
"it's about WHO gets to decide WHICH EVENTS get to count in a rating list or not."
The example of Shirov is a good illustration. Now, all of these four values might turn out to represent his "official July rating":
2715, 2732, 2747, 2764
A difference of 50 (fifty!) points IS significant and doesn't normally describe the same skills (even if it theoretically can, for a very few players - Ivanchuk being the primary example). It shouldn't be left to the Russian and the Bulgarian organizer/federation to (partly) make this choice, when the rating in question might impact qualification to the final stages of the World Championship of chess.
Just a question:
The words in caps are more or less important than the other words in your sentences?
The words in caps would've been in *bold*, _underlined_ or in (i)italics(/i) if the Dirt would've offered more typographical facilities.
If you have more questions unrelated to any chess issue, then please do me the favour of not asking them - at any rate they won't be answered, by me.
Now I answered your question, please answer mine:
What do YOU consider to be likely reasons why MTel hasn't been submitted for rating yet, Manu? Is it entirely random, sloppiness, or can you think up secondary motives?
I could think about one or two very obvious secondary motives , i´ll share them with you when your announced site/blog gets online.
And actually , you didnt answered my question about the words in CAPS ...
But nevermind ,im going to sleep , enjoy yourself.
"And actually , you didnt answered my question about the words in CAPS"
I did, but I assumed you knew the purpose of typography and typographical conventions. Silly me.
One simple solution could be: organizers HAVE TO submit results to the rating list _within one week after the event_ ... or not at all. While the latter may be 'convenient' in a few cases, it would negatively affect the prestige of an event, alienate sponsors, ... and thus is unlikely to happen.
And the rationale why organizers get up to 60 days, hence deciding which "FIDE snapshot list" is affected by their results, is unclear to me. Is it a remnant from old days when tournament results had to be processed "by hand", as opposed to having everything on the computer harddisk within minutes to hours after the end of the last round?
Quoting frogbert: "My suggestion is that FIDE _actively_ should obtain the necessary rating data for all "top players" (top 30, top 50, top 100, depending on where one wants to draw the line) that might be seriously affected by in which list a finished event eventually is counted in."
'Where to draw the line' is the critical issue. In principle, FIDE caters to ALL players - as opposed to the live rating list which is dedicated to those rated 2700 or higher (or "within striking distance", see below). Hence, "top 1000" or "top 10000" would be just as adequate, but becoming impractical (ELO ratings have other purposes besides determining the rating qualifier to the candidates tournament!?).
Questions to frogbert: How many sub-2700 players do you 'monitor'? Anyone with an official rating above 2600 or 2650? How certain can you be that you don't miss any given (open) tournament? This is of course no criticism, keeping in mind that the live ELO list is a 'hobby project' (read: not at all a full-time paid endeavour).
Why hasn't MTel been submitted for rating yet? Indeed a mystery for me, given the fact that Chessdom (a Bulgarian site close to the organizers) had cheerfully reported that Shirov overtook Kramnik on the live rating list after his Sofia victory ... .
Would they consider him a more dangerous opponent in either the candidates tournament (assuming Topalov loses his match against Anand) or WCh match (assuming Topalov becomes world champion)?
You are not silly , you just couldn´t understand the question , that´s all.
Go play with Thomas , he understands you very well , great minds think alike!
"im going to sleep , enjoy yourself."
Your second to last post said you were going to sleep, so I was starting to enjoy myself. Remember, sleeptyping can be dangerous, too.
"Is it a remnant from old days when tournament results had to be processed "by hand", as opposed to having everything on the computer harddisk within minutes to hours after the end of the last round?"
Thomas, I have urgent work to do now, so I must leave this debate for a while. However, for some useful information about the inconsistant and conveniently confusing rules regarding FIDE rating, see a post in my chessgames.com player page:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/kibitzing?kid=P101612&reply=3968
It should answer your question about that 60-day rule.
For what it's worth (subject to change?!), FIDE has put up a document on regulations for the candidates matches:
http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates.pdf
The document has 24 pages, some key points:
1) The relevant rating lists for the two rating spots are July 2009 and January 2010 (thus confirming frogbert's inside information)
2) Yes, there will be matches - 4 games (plus tiebreaks if required) in rounds 1+2, 6 games in the final.
3) "FIDE shall open a bidding procedure for the Candidates Matches before 31 December 2008. [sic]"
I like that they included a detailed explanation of the basic rules of chess, in case some of the players forget how the knight moves or that "the objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move."
actually, i think that part might have been intended for the eventual arbiter or other fide officials - after all, they do seem to have problems remembering (all of) their own rules more than occasionally...
btw - here's chessvibes' overview of the candidate event, the cycle changes and the recently confirmed rating qualification criteria:
http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/candidates-matches-regulations-published-who-will-qualify/#more-12715
You still didn´t answer what happened with your announced blog/site , im looking forward to debate there.
"your announced blog/site"
Manu, what exactly are you referring to here - a dream you had? Do you mind showing me the EXACT post you have in mind?
Did you or did you not talked about an upcoming site of yours(or expansion to your blog/site) on this threads?
"or expansion to your blog/site"
Which blog? When did I say that I have a blog? Or was intending to start one? Manu, what is it that you think I've said? Check this list of apparently purposeless interrogative remarks:
() "Hey frogbert , didnt you said that you were going to open a new site or something with new content?"
() "And you didnt answer my questions, what happened with you having your own blog or something?"
() "i´ll share them with you when your announced site/blog gets online."
() "You still didn´t answer what happened with your announced blog/site , im looking forward to debate there."
() "Did you or did you not talked about an upcoming site of yours(or expansion to your blog/site) on this threads?"
Have I failed in supplying you with another forum where you can bother people with pointless drivel like the above? Again, what's your point?
If you for one moment had appeared as having a serious and sincere interest in what I do or don't - and asked politely instead of pretending that you're leading some 3rd degree interrogation - I would have probably rectified your utter confusion some posts ago.
Whether I would have a blog or not is quite irrelevant to my activity in the Daily Dirt comment section. I know you feel this is, like, your sandbox where you can safely play, build sand towers and stomp in other's castles and creations. However, when Peter (ChessVibes) or Mark (TWIC) drop by "your" playground it would look beyond silly if you told them to leave and go back to their own virtual places because you had an issue with their presence.
Mig, if anyone, is the playground patrol here. That doesn't change whether you play quietly in your own corner or insist on hurling sand towards your playmates and the random bypasser.
Interesting quote at the end of the Chessvibes article:
"In the FIDE Handbook (B02, paragraph 0.2) it says that “in principle, all important events should be rated. All top level tournaments may be rated by FIDE even if no rating report is submitted by the federation of the territory in which the event is held.” so it’s well possible that M-Tel and Poikovsky will be included anyway. Let’s hope FIDE will understand the importance."
I can only agree with Peter Doggers ... and then this ongoing discussion (and in particular frogbert's alertness!) would be worth the effort.
However, what about Bazna, finishing June 25th? Could it also still be included in the July 2009 rating list? [To my knowledge:] In principle, FIDE events (but only FIDE events) are exempted from the deadline to submit rating reports ... so _any_ decision in this case would be a controversial one.
I´ll take that as a no.
But before you call security :
frogbert said:
¨ I've also got a couple of new features for my site ready to launch as soon as time permits.¨
Manu said:
¨I really hope none of your new features is an open forum . ¨
That is what i was teasing you about , you get too mad too easily , relax.
Gusfraba.
"Could it also still be included in the July 2009 rating list?"
I doubt it:
-7 June 24th - probably the deadline.
-6 June 25th
-5 June 26th
-4 June 27th
-3 June 28th
-2 June 29th
-1 June 30th
0 July 1st
Remember the info I referred you to, Thomas? Here's the relevant excerpt:
"Closing date of the tournaments to be rated on a list is seven days before the list date, except the official FIDE tournaments listed in the Handbook, they are rated even if the end on the last day before the list date."
[ see http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2008/79th_fide_congress/annex_70_2008.pdf ]
By the rules I initially _thought_ was in effect, the deadline should have been June 15th unless otherwise announced. Since FIDE has kept rating events submitted until today, it seems like they already have switched to the deadline approved during the Dresden GA last year - seven days before the list date.
Counting like I did above (which I think is the right way to count), Bazra's closing date is 6 (six) days before the list date - which according to the rules should be too late.
Interesting ... if Bazna didn't have a second rest day today, it would finish just in time to be included in the July FIDE list!? I wonder if organizers were aware of this or not.
"I wonder if organizers were aware of this or not."
Most certainly they weren't, since FIDE mysteriously has decided to apply this change before I think it was scheduled to be applied. Also note that my previous post simply was an assumption based on available documentation and what I can observe taking place on the FIDE rating site.
As you probably know, previously it has been out of the question to get "normal" events rated if they were submitted later than 14 days before the next list date.
Now there are 19 submitted events from the Bulgarian federation, the latest one being this:
http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=44458
For Shirov it would be very advantageous for his July + January average with MTel rated and Poikovsky not rated. Compared to the opposite situation - Poikovsky rated and MTel unrated, there's a difference of roughly 24 rating points in the final average! And that's assuming NO DIFFERENCE in games played, only rating time and order.
a)
(x + 16) + (x + 16 - 32) = 2x
average: 2x / 2 = x
b) (x - 32) + (x - 32 + 16) = 2x - 48
average: (2x - 48) = x - 24
Of course, Shirov would be expected to score somewhat more in the next rating period, since his rating would be 48 points higher in case a compared to case b - but he could also choose not to play any games in that rating period (after he got his new rating), hence eliminating that minor "disadvantage".
It follows (in my opinion) that the only sensible thing to do is to rate Poikovsky too - now.
Why does FIDE have to wait for "official" tournament records to be submitted when statistics of most of these tournaments are already available (on TWIC for example)? I noted above that the MTel records have not been officially submitted, but most every chess follower knows the results of that tournament. If the live rating site can keep up with all the tournaments occurring in the world, why can't FIDE, especially if they hired someone to do the job, do the same?
Slight correction: The live rating list does not keep up with ALL tournaments in the world, but only with 'selected' events - namely those including actual or 'potential' 2700+ players. As FIDE caters to all players, in principle there is a point in not making exceptions for a select group.
IMO blame should go
- in the first instance to the Poikovsky organizers
- in the second instance to FIDE, for the arbitrary choice of two rating lists to determine two participants of the candidates matches.
"IMO blame should go"
to FIDE, because they shouldn't rely on local federations and organizers to provide the rating reports for events sporting the top players.
As long as ratings have its current importance among top players, local federations should have no way of influencing when events are rated. Usually that isn't extremely important (unless the changes are notable), but in a couple of cases it is:
1) when ratings are used for qualification, like in this case
2) when federations use "tactical reporting" to boost the rating progress of improving players
Like previously mentioned, there in fact exists a (sleeping) rule about "pre-registration" of events to be rated. In order to make it easy for FIDE to keep updated ratings at all times for say all 2650+ rated players, I propose the following sketch for a procedure to solve at least problem 1:
0) This applies to all players rated 2650 or more in the latest official rating list, plus organizers of events sporting such players.
1) Prior to any event, the player has to send FIDE a notification, detailing the event title, the start and end date, and contact info of the organizer.
2) Any organizer of FIDE-rated events sporting 2650+ players has to have a "result contact" that FIDE can use for obtaining the tournament rating details, prior to the standard reporting via the federation's rating officer.
3) Failure to comply with these demands will result in appropriate sanctions. For the (professional) player, this could be as grave as not being eligible for rating qualification to FIDE events for a suitable period.
The requirement to "register" with FIDE your participation in each event you play might seem like a big hazzle, but do remember that thousands of people practicing other sports have to report where they can be found at practically all times, so that doping inspectors can perform unannounced tests during training periods. Full time sports men/women usually have to comply with much more bureaucracy on a routine basis compared to the suggestion above, so the only part I consider a bit hard, is working out suitable sanctions.
In this or similar ways, FIDE could effectively drive the rating process and leave no room for "manipulation" from the various federations.
Kmon dude , make this a better world for next generations , meassure the rapid games!
Thomas , give me a hand here , ask your friend about doing the rapid rating list.
Manu, in some ways you remind me of my 6-year old. While he in general is a sweet kid, I'm not sure that this resemblance is something you should strive for. :o)
No offense taken , are you considering it at least?
Isnt easier and shorter to say : yes its a good idea , im considering it OR no ,i already have enough work to do writting those gigantic posts..
The fact that you didnt adress the idea makes me think that is a good one , :)
Right, Manu. I think Frogbert has registered your request by now. He will respond if he chooses. In the meantime can you let it rest? Thanks.
Wasn´t talking to you cat and your mediation adds nothing to the issue , in fact it caused this post when it wasn´t my intention to pursue with the subject.
Thx anyway.
Just a quick update on the July list:
Now also Poikovsky has been rated (and Shirov is out of luck for the rating qualification, I guess).
The tournament info "card" says "submitted June 24th" and that might be correct - but it surely was NOT present on the FIDE site on saturday June 27th and probably not yesterday June 28th either - I checked there rather late.
http://ratings.fide.com/tournament_details.phtml?event=44463
However, the event number - 44463 - is consistent with the event being REGISTERED on June 24th, so if it has been registered by FIDE instead of submitted by the federation of Russia, it makes "sense", also to the forever "skeptic" frogbert. :o) But I'm pretty sure the event didn't turn up as rated until today, June 29th, though.
Anyway, there is no requirement to publish every update on a running basis, so when reports are submitted and when reports are published are clearly two seperate concerns.
Now only Bazna remains - it finished June 25th, while there are tournaments rated that were submitted as late as June 26th, according to the FIDE web site. Today a FIDE zonal event was submitted and rated, but that's different I assume, as it probably counts as an official FIDE event.
chesshire,
I don't know who to blame for this post; you, or manu, or maybe even frogbert. But I disclaim all responsibility.
Just now I am not talking to any of you and am not pursuing anything.
In case my intentions are mistaken, however, and this post draws a response, your mediation would be more than welcome.
Welcome back, Greg.
greg,
I'm sorry for making you make that post - I'm convinced it's my fault.
As a token of my sincerely felt regrets, I'll let chesshire cat figure out a reasonable punishment which, if he posts his verdict, I will blame on HardyBerger.