OpenChess

Seems Magnus has lost his number one ELO rating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/cross ... ?src=twrhp

in a span of nine games at the World Chess Olympiad and the Bilbao Final Masters, he lost five times, which is unheard of for a top-ranked player. When Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov were ranked No. 1, they rarely lost five games in a year. Viswanathan Anand of India, the current world champion, has been similarly consistent.

No. He had 3 wins, (one against Topalov today) in Nanjing tournament and will likely be up to 2810 today. We should not forget that he is still a teenager. Chess players usually reach their top form in their thirties. It is already unrivalled what he has achieved imo. Fischer was not the best in the world when he was 20, neither was Kasparov if my memory does not fail me.

http://chess.liverating.org/

I find it amusing that computer chess fans -- who are aware of the huge number of games we need to measure the strength of a chess program with any degree of accuracy -- attach so much importance to the last digit of human Elo ratings. Human ratings are horribly inaccurate, because it just isn't possible for a human to play a sufficient number of tournament games, and because humans are so inconsistent. The order of the current top four (at least) players on the live rating is almost completely random. These guys are all extremely strong chess players (of course), but there is no significant evidence that any one of them is stronger than the rest.

I also tend to view most claims that "human player X has difficulties against human player Y" with skepticism. We really can't make such conclusions based on a lopsided score in 10 games or less (unless the score is 10-0 or something similarly extreme). In most cases, if you calculate the probabilities, it is perfectly possible that the lopsided result is pure chance. There are exceptions (like Kasparov's devastating lifetime score against Shirov), but they are few and far between.

Tord wrote:I find it amusing that computer chess fans -- who are aware of the huge number of games we need to measure the strength of a chess program with any degree of accuracy -- attach so much importance to the last digit of human Elo ratings. Human ratings are horribly inaccurate, because it just isn't possible for a human to play a sufficient number of tournament games, and because humans are so inconsistent. The order of the current top four (at least) players on the live rating is almost completely random. These guys are all extremely strong chess players (of course), but there is no significant evidence that any one of them is stronger than the rest.

I also tend to view most claims that "human player X has difficulties against human player Y" with skepticism. We really can't make such conclusions based on a lopsided score in 10 games or less (unless the score is 10-0 or something similarly extreme). In most cases, if you calculate the probabilities, it is perfectly possible that the lopsided result is pure chance. There are exceptions (like Kasparov's devastating lifetime score against Shirov), but they are few and far between.

Your observation is lucid. In the last 160 years not many great masters had long winning streaks (with only a few draws) against all comers of the highest ranks. Names like Capablanca, Alekhine, Karpov, Kasparov come to mind. There are others, but today there are so many of similar rank. Maybe they are all Karpovs or maybe they are all Beliavskys. I expect they are of the latter calibre more than of the former.

orgfert wrote:Your observation is lucid. In the last 160 years not many great masters had long winning streaks (with only a few draws) against all comers of the highest ranks. Names like Capablanca, Alekhine, Karpov, Kasparov come to mind. There are others, but today there are so many of similar rank. Maybe they are all Karpovs or maybe they are all Beliavskys. I expect they are of the latter calibre more than of the former.

Can someone decipher this post for me

Cordially,

Sean

Nah, he has just won his last tournament, and still number 1 on the rating lists.If Magnus is washed up then his opponents are double rinced.

Magnus is dropping:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6784

He is still #1 on the live rating list, the Fide list does not include his last tournament which he just won.

Cubeman wrote:He is still #1 on the live rating list, the Fide list does not include his last tournament which he just won.

The live top rating list is unofficial and will not be used by organizers in their events!

Magnus is too young, he will certainly get back to the top in few years time anyway. I think its going to be a fight between Invanchuk and Carlsen at the top.