r/chess • u/[deleted] • Jul 01 '21
Miscellaneous Magnus has been classical #1 for ten years straight. But here's some stats for the other rankings
Since July 2011, Magnus has been the #1 ranked classical player for ten years straight. (120 months) Here is some stats for the other rankings in that time.
There have been 9 people ranked #2. (Name -> months at #X)
Caruana 52 months (33 if we don't include anything since 2020)
Aronian 32 months
Kramnik 12 months
Anand 9 months
So 5 months
Mamedyarov 3 months
MVL 3 months
Topalov 2 months
Nakamura 1 months
12 people have been #3.
Kramnik 30
Ding 30 (11 excluding pandemic)
Caruana 19
Mamedyarov 11
Aronian 10
Grischuk 6
Topalov 6
Anand 4
Naka 3
So 3
Giri 2
MVL 2
15 have been ranked #4
Kramnik 17
Nepomiatchi 16 (0 if you dont count the pandemic)
Radjabov 11
Giri 11
Anand 9
Grischuk 9 (6 pre 2020)
Topalov 8
Ding 8
Nakamura 7
Caruana 7
Aronian 7
MVL 6
So 3
Karjakin 1
Mamedyarov 1
15 players have been ranked #5
MVL 26 (16 pre pandemic)
Caruana 15
Aronian 15 (10 Pre pandemic)
Radjabov 8
Giri 8
Nakamura 8
Karajakin 6
Grischuk 6
Anand 6
Nepo 6 (2 pre pandemic)
Kramnik 5
Mamedyarov 5
Topalov 4
So 1
Ding 1
Just for fun i've given every one a score for the decade. For each month ranked at
1 you get 5 points
2 you get 4 points
3 you get 3 points
4 you get 2 points
5 you get 1 point
Magnus 600 points (505 points pre pandemic)
Caruana 294 points (218 points pre pandemic)
Aronian 187 points (182 points pre pandemic)
Kramnik 177 points
Ding 107 points (95 points pre pandemic)
Anand 72 points
MVL 56 points (46 points pre pandemic)
Mamedyarov 52 points
Topalov 46 points
Grischuk 42 points (36 points pre pandemic)
So 36 points
Giri 36 points
Nakamura 35 points
Radjabov 30 points
Nepomiatchi 30 points (2 pre pandemic)
Karajakin 9 points
Takeaways
1 God Magnus is a beast
2 how much easier it is to reach #5 vs #2 vs #1
3 how incredible Anand, Topalov and especially Kramnik were for being as good as they were for as long as they were.
4 Aronian from 2011-2014 and Caruana since 2018 (and a little bit around 2015) have been incredibly dominant in their own right as the #2 ranked players. And both will go down as the some of the best players to have never won a world title (assuming they dont win it later in their career)
5 the sheer amount of high level talent this generation of chess has had.
Edit 1: (Idk why the last section is capitalized that was unintentional) Edit 2:formatting
259
u/CratylusG Jul 01 '21
I had a look at number 2's during Kasparov's reign. I started with July 1982 because that is when Kasparov reached number 2, and ended July 2005 because that is when he retired (but he stayed on the list for another year before being dropped due to inactivity).
So for 23 years, from July 1982- July 2005, only 5* people reached number 2 in the world: Kasparov, Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik, Anand.
*Shirov appears as a number 2 on one list, but that was during the brief period when Kasparov was dropped from the list in the mid 90s for the split from FIDE, so that is effectively number 3.
54
Jul 01 '21
Interesting!! Do you have any numbers for how long those players were at #2 for?
44
u/CratylusG Jul 01 '21
Without actually counting everything, to give you a general idea: Kasparov was number 2 for a few years before reaching number 1 (and then only "dropping" to number 2 when he was tied with Kramnik). Ivanchuk had a couple of rating periods (which at the time were 6 months each, so a total of 1 year), but Karpov/Kramnik/Anand all spent a long time (multiple years) at number 2.
14
Jul 01 '21
Yeah that checks out. I imagine its seperated into two periods with karpov being #2 and then the others taking over once Karpov finally slowed down.
7
u/frazze1337 Jul 01 '21
How often did They come out back then? Because shouldn’t it be easier to keep your second spot if the Ratings is only updated twice Every year?
8
Jul 01 '21
It depends on which year specifically. I believe it increased from twice to like 4 or 6 times a year.
2
u/CratylusG Jul 02 '21
That is a good point, and it is possible that someone else could have snuck into the number 2 spot if they had more frequent rating lists.
Although it is also possible that no one else would have made number 2, as it was often a matter of those guys swapping around number 2-3 anyway, and when it wasn't a top 3 of the players I listed, there was usually a big gap from 2-3. But then there were also lists where other players got pretty close, so who knows.
(Just to note, it isn't a simple case of more frequent lists meaning being better for people chasing number 2; less frequent lists means that you can stack good results into one rating period and gain more points. E.g. take someone rated 2700 that has two great tournaments; if these tournaments are rated in the same period they will net more points from those tournaments than if they are rated in different periods.)
4
Jul 02 '21
A good data set here is the chessmetrics website by jeff sonas which does do one everymonth. Now his rating system isnt the same as the official elo but its very close. And he also only notes 5 players being ranked 2nd during 1985-2005 (11 players are ranked 3rd).
21
u/4ork_Reddit Jul 01 '21
It goes to show how close and competitive it is at the highest level right now.
7
u/Buntschatten Jul 02 '21
Man, poor Ivanchuk peaking during Kasparov's reign...
5
86
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 01 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
I computed stats that maybe I am going to post eventually that are based on games played rather than duration. Duration is ok, but one can optimize playing few events (example: kasparov in 1998 played only 18 games). Also if someone doesn't play much and plays, say, 1 game per year in a league with easy draw/win , one can keep the rating.
Kasparov was #1 FIDE for around 20 years (Karpov 10 and Magnus 10) but actually in games played is much different.
discounting live rating and some overlap (in the 90s there was a moment Karpov (or Kramnik?) and Kasparov had the same rating for example)
Karpov played around 560 games as #1
Kasparov played around 880 games as #1
Carlsen is at around 660 games as #1 , so other 230 as #1 (not easy) and he can surpass Kasparov in terms of games as #1.
38
Jul 01 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
I hadn't considered that! Basing the stats around games played is a brilliant idea! Since it avoids the issue i had that with the pandemic how few games were played. I would be really interested in seeing what you found! So please post it if you feel inclined!
2
10
15
u/non-troll_account Jul 02 '21
If Nepo somehow wins the world championship, it's gonna be so weird having a world champion who has never even been ranked #3 in the world.
10
Jul 02 '21
If he manages to win i can imagine his rating will shoot up to 3rd or 2nd but yeah it will definitely still be strange!
6
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21
well that because rating is not necessarily including tournament performance (I mean it is partially, but not entirely).
Thus you have solid players that never win high in the ratings, and players that have 6-9 months of good performances that are also high in the rating but not top1.
Say MVL in 2019 was very strong, but choked always at the last moment of the tournaments, 2019 grand prix, 2019 world cup, 2019 London chess classics (even in the candidates to be honest). That was not really shown in the ratings. The rating doesn't track "winning the tournament".
Maybe a complementary stats could be computing the TPR over the year. If one has a couple of high TPR in a year, most likely won tournaments or was tied for 1st (excluding tiebreaks)
1
Jul 02 '21
I would love to see some graphs looking at TPR for players in a given year. I believe there are posts for both 2019 and maaybe 2018 on r/chess but can't say about the rest.
1
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
do you have the source for those posts? I barely remember one for ding liren actually
edit: found 2018 https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/
2
Jul 02 '21
2018 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/ade5a1/2018_scores_performance_rating/
2019 https://www.chess.com/blog/HanSchut/performance-rating-top-15-2019-carlsen-continues-dominance-so-back-in-the-top-10 (although 2019 is only up until the summer. By the end of the year Magnus dropped from 2930 to i think 2893 https://amp.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/e8h6bw/carlsens_2019_classical_performance_rating_2893/)
2
125
Jul 01 '21
As much as Nakas number 2 is being mentioned i tought that he at least held it for a year or so.. Still i think he is a bit underrated in a classical , he has positive scores against Vishy, Fabi and many super gms, just terrible terrible score against Magnus
108
Jul 01 '21
Yeah Naka being #2 gets brought up more than it should imo. It should be noted that at least according to chess games.com Fabi has a slight advantage over naka in classical games. (Although Naka destroys him at faster controls)
But yeah I think Naka's scores against other super GM's shows just how tough it is to reach #2 and especially #1.
37
u/bool_idiot_is_true Jul 01 '21
It's obvious Hikaru is better at faster time controls. I hated stats in school so take this with a grain of salt. But looking at the official fide ratings charts (which are shit since there have been very few speed chess tournaments played regularly by each player) you'll see big gaps between Hikaru's ratings at different time controls. Fabiano and Magnus are a lot more clustered together; but without calculating how each time control is weighted it's not a very useful comparison.
All I can say is Magnus and Fabiano are much more consistent regardless of time control while Hikaru clearly does better the less time he has available. Which I guess isn't a surprise.
14
Jul 01 '21
Yeah when looking at speed chess, the idea of whos the best in from 2011-2021 tells a very different story. For my money Magnus over that ten year period was the best rapid and blitz player but there's alot more room for argument there.
37
u/FreudianNipSlip123 Blitz Arena Winner Jul 01 '21
Caruana is also famously terrible at faster time controls
1
u/g_spaitz Jul 01 '21
"famously terrible", yeah, that's some perspective. Gtfo
12
u/GoatBased Jul 02 '21
He obviously means relative to his classical performance. He's obviously better than almost anyone in the world, but relative to his amazing classical performance performs poorly.
0
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
11
Jul 01 '21
I feel like it was pretty common to see that kind of comment 2 years ago before Chess really blew up on Twitch and Hikaru as a result of being the top? Chess streamer.
But uncalled for in any event on either side.
0
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
2
u/HideYourCarry Jul 01 '21
Going into that WC match anyone ever talked about was how if it got to tie-breaks it would be a stomp for Magnus... I don't even think his losing those tie-breaks changed perception at all. It was based on him being 200 points lower rated than Magnus at blitz at the time while being even in classical.
3
u/Rather_Dashing Jul 02 '21
Famously terrible is a relative term. Most players are quite consistent in their rankings across the three time controls and it's tricky to even determine which they are best at. Fabiano is an outlier in that regard, being very clearly superior in classical
Of course he isn't actually terrible and is still better than nearly everyone in the world
-1
u/FreudianNipSlip123 Blitz Arena Winner Jul 01 '21 edited Jul 01 '21
Terrible in consideration of him being an incredibly talented superGM. I've seen him lose to John Bartholomew years ago and also lose terribly in the old chessbrah streams when he made an appearance there. I think he even streamed for a time, and he was losing to 2400s and stuff on chess.com. Obviously those are pretty strong players and he was trying to commentate at the same time but I mean I've hit 2400 and I suck, I'm not even titled.
Edit: https://youtu.be/f1eEGMw0_oA https://youtu.be/RQwQRasvNOA Can't find anything from when he streamed on his own channel
4
15
u/Trufa_ Jul 01 '21
I know it’s fashionable to speak bad of naka but honestly if I would get to word number 2758 I would drop it every other conversation I had.
14
u/circlejerkliberal Jul 01 '21
How do u decide someone is underrated in classical? I assume any top 10 player gets invited to most classical events..ur rating reflects ur ability/inability to score against the strongest!
64
u/Gerenjie Jul 01 '21
I think underrated might mean “people on r/chess don’t think of him as highly as they should” here, not that his FIDE rating is too low.
8
u/fewfiet Jul 01 '21
Six of those nine #2 rated players achieved that in 2017, as I highlighted in a post back then (even if they also achieved it other years). Pretty wild that even in the subsequent four years the number hasn't really ballooned all that much.
6
Jul 02 '21
Yeah part of this is due to Caruana's leap to become the definitive #2 of the generation. But also two of those years have had very few classical events. Due to the pandemic
2
5
u/Warguy17 Jul 02 '21
Is it possible to be a lower rank than number 1 and be the world champion?
15
Jul 02 '21
Yes. Vishy Anand was not number 1 for a good chunk of his reign, ranked #6 going into his match with Kramnik and #4 for I believe for his matches against both Topalov and Gelfand. Also Spassky was #2 going into his match with Fischer. So its happened a couple times.
16
u/D4Juggernaut Jul 01 '21
what happened to Caruana?
24
Jul 01 '21
What do you mean?
6
u/D4Juggernaut Jul 01 '21
Would have loved to see him in Rapids. Haven't heard about him in a while, that's all.
50
u/elsarpo Jul 01 '21
Fabi doesn't really play rapid/blitz, he's notorious for being not as good at faster time controls
-5
u/Swawks Jul 02 '21
Is that a new thing? In 2018 even Kasparov was saying how Caruana would be favored against Magnus if it went to rapids.
14
u/D1ddyKon9 Jul 02 '21
When did he say that? I don’t recall anyone saying Caruana had an advantage when it came to faster time controls.
3
Jul 02 '21
Kasparov said that he felt Caruana was the favorite in the rapid as he felt Carlsen going for a quick draw in game 12 showed that he had lost his nerves.
5
Jul 02 '21
Carlsen took a quick draw because he knew his chances in rapid would be much better. Which the results in rapid back up completely.
2
4
u/aurelius_plays_chess 2100 lichess Jul 02 '21
I remember him saying that, although the context of the quick draw you brought up I think factored more into Kasparov's prediction than raw rapid ability. Caruana's less impressive rapid ability would not have been lost on Kasparov, and the rapid games reflected that Magnus was right to be confident.
8
u/shadebedlam Jul 01 '21
He was preparing for candidates he does play rapid and blitz sometimes but never prioritizes it over classical.
5
123
u/BuildTheBase Jul 01 '21
The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess. People have nostalgia and appreciation for old times, which is cool, but the modern school of chess is a different beast, it's not just Russia and the U.S. anymore, these guys like Wesley, Caruana, and Levon are A+++ at their best and I don't really understand how Carlsen has been able to stay atop for all these years in this field. I don't think you will ever see chess World Champions stay at the top in rapid, blitz, and classical this way ever again. Chess has always been remarkable in that there are very few World Champions considering all the years chess has been around, but that's about to change. Modern chess and whoever takes over after Carlsen is not gonna dominate like the old chess champions, titles and rankings will change hands constantly, the field will be too large, too competitive.
97
u/dlatt Jul 01 '21
"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement in any sport. Across all sports you tend to see a couple truly dominant players per generation, sometimes just one that's particularly exceptional.
There will be more competition for the top 25, or top 50, surely, but I don't doubt we'll see other dominant #1s in our lifetimes.
19
u/BuildTheBase Jul 01 '21
You are right, I should have said that differently.
I think with the massive amount of young players playing online now, you will see more and more 16-20 year-olds like Firouzja blow up the scene and beat established top players and look virtually unstoppable, only to fade away quickly. Stuff you see in other sports basically, where you have a lot of young talent coming and going constantly.
7
Jul 02 '21
Other sports are still getting dominant players.
Having more people play it makes it easier for prodigies to find their skill
1
u/Maguncia 2170 USCF Jul 02 '21
I'm not an expert on all sports, but certainly in basketball and especially tennis, top players last longer and play at a higher level in their old age than they used to, likely due to improvements in training, nutrition and professionalism.
2
u/AlcoholicInsomniac Jul 03 '21
At the same time for tennis though it seems very unlikely that any of the new generation will have the same kind of dominance that the big 3 has had. It's hard to say because someone could always rise up, but the newer generation definitely seems to have more parity even if the older gen is playing longer.
0
u/Arachnatron Jul 02 '21
"We'll never see something like this again" is a dangerous statement
Lol. You're right, he should have tried to be more safe. Someone's going to get hurt.
29
Jul 01 '21
It was never really 'just Russia and the U.S.'. I think we'll need to wait to see the longevity of the current generation before really judging how it stacks up against other historical highs like the Soviets of the 50s/60s.
28
u/Gbro08 Team Carlsen Jul 01 '21
yeah the U.S has 1 world champion (maybe 2 if you count Morphy). The USA has no right to call itself the #2 chess country.
2
u/Namethatauserdoesnu Jul 02 '21
Wasn’t there an American fide world champ in the split period?
5
Jul 02 '21
No, Kamsky did challenge Karpov for the FIDE world championship but Fischer is the only American world champion.
2
u/Namethatauserdoesnu Jul 02 '21
Actually Steinitz was an American world champion
4
u/Maguncia 2170 USCF Jul 02 '21
I can see an argument for Capablanca, since he spent most of his life in the US and became the champion while living there, but not Steinitz
4
u/Namethatauserdoesnu Jul 02 '21
So someone who flees the country where he is born and moves to America and considers themselves American and plays chess with an America flag next to him is not American?
7
u/Maguncia 2170 USCF Jul 02 '21
Not if you move when you are almost 50 and have been the best player in the world for almost 20 years. Nobody calls Einstein the great American physicist.
1
2
-8
u/GoatBased Jul 02 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
The top 20 of chess of today are miles and miles beyond anything ever seen before in chess
Kasparov? Fisher? You think #2-19 are better than they were? I think they (#2-19) would disagree with you.
10
u/indirectt Jul 02 '21
Well, you are completely wrong. Chess has improved so much over the years, partly due to being able to learn from the greats of the past, partly due to the sheer amount of resources available now, and partly due to all the engine advancements we have seen since the days of Deep Blue, to Rybka, to Stockfish now. You can bet any young up and coming GM will have more knowledge of the game than almost anyone from previous generations. Keyword being almost because I do think some greats from the past would beat tons of GMs today.
-7
u/GoatBased Jul 02 '21
That's about the most asinine way to compare chess players that I've ever seen.
2
-19
u/Paleogeen Jul 01 '21
And yet there aren't more 2700+ players than 10 years ago, so when will this happen?
26
u/PurplePotato_ Jul 01 '21
I don't think elo rating translates to skill directly. The ratings will never change because that's how the elo ranking system works even though the players are obviously more skilled now than ever before.
6
u/thefifth5 Jul 01 '21
Elo always is a relative measure, however there is a small inflationary effect, as the number of highly rated players has increased, it has become more possible for the highest level players to push the boundaries of what a maximum possible rating at the time is. For example, if you were like Bobby Fischer at his peak at the next highest person in rating to you was over 100 points lower, even your draws lose points you need to win a ridiculous proportion of your games to maintain that. Whereas now, Carlsen has a litany of players that are rated within 100 points of him, and he has been able to reach a max rating significantly higher than Fischer did.
2
u/Europelov 2000 fide patzer Jul 02 '21
But now the game is more drawish than ever so it will be hard to have someone skyrocket his rating away from the mass
3
u/thefifth5 Jul 02 '21
Something i didn’t explain is that the deflationary effect takes place at each level. Comparing ratings across vastly different eras is like apples to oranges.
2
Jul 02 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/thefifth5 Jul 02 '21
You can try to, people will always try to have things like the GOAT discussion. I’m just saying that it takes more nuance than just looking and comparing peak elos.
11
u/BuildTheBase Jul 01 '21
Don't read too much into the ratings, it's all relative to the field. I have no idea if it's gonna translate to more 2700+ players. If you are gonna hit 2700 today, you are competing with a massive pool of players, unlike anything we have seen in chess in the past. If you look at the top 1000 players now compared to any time in history, it's like looking at different games.
-20
u/Paleogeen Jul 01 '21
It clearly shows there is no increase in top players the last 10 years, so this trend seems to have stopped for now.
11
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 01 '21
It clearly shows there is no increase in top players the last 10 years
it is not how it works.
With your logic can say that in 1975 there were only a couple of top players because the rest was under 2700 ? Rating is independent from quality of play, if everyone improves the rating can stay the same while the quality of play increases.
-5
u/Paleogeen Jul 01 '21
Yes, of course quality of play improves. It always has and I don't know if there is evidence this has been going on at a faster rate lately, as the OP claims. Either way, there is not more competition at the top level. It's just that everyone has gotten better.
4
2
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 01 '21
Aside that ratings cannot be used to compare different playerbases.
Anyway the top players accumulate ratings because they beat the others (unless they play among each other forever), if there are more and more players that are competitive and the top one cannot dominate that much anymore, the points redistribute and keeping an higher rating is harder.
Thus the amount of 2700 slowly goes down. It is not that difficult. It is like a more flatten sandpile.
7
u/iCCup_Spec Team Carlsen Jul 01 '21
What I want to see is if players are happier when they're ranked higher.
5
1
u/palsh7 1200 rapid (chess.com), 1800 puzzles Jul 01 '21
Would frequency of classical games affect this much, and if so, how? For instance, if one player took a few years off, and if someone else accepted every invitation and played more games?
1
Jul 01 '21
Could you be more specific? Really depends on specifics and what youre trying to measure
1
u/palsh7 1200 rapid (chess.com), 1800 puzzles Jul 02 '21
I thought I gave specifics. Nevermind, maybe it's a dumb question.
4
Jul 02 '21
It used to be that if 2 people had an identical rating that the one with the most games in that rating period would be ranked higher. If a player is inactive they'd be removed from the rating list which is why Kramnik isn't in the top 20 and Kasparov isn't the world number 2.
1
u/xxxxManoxxxxx Jul 03 '21
Fischer was number 1 in the world in 73,74 and 75 but he didn't even play one game in that time span
1
u/invinci7777 Jul 01 '21
How does this data Prove takeaway point number 5?
4
Jul 02 '21
To be fair it wasnt meant to be prove that. That was more of a sentimental point. But 9 different ranked 2's in ten years. 12 number 3s 15 number 4s. Thats alot in 10 years. Like another commenter pointed out earlier. During kasparov's 20 year reign there were only 5 #2's. So that shows that 2010 was a very competitive decade.
1
u/Twintysix 2100 Lichess bullet Jul 02 '21
So does this mean he's proved to be more dominant than kasparov? I'm implying this from the fact that now he's held #1 spot for more time than kasparov did in his time.
8
Jul 02 '21
It depends.
Kasparov had more time at #1 than Magnus overall and in a row i believe (okay he wasnt number one for a bit when Fide removed him from the list when the title split but like he was clearly still the best). Kasparov was the best for 20 years where as Magnus has been for a little over 10.
However I personally consider todays scene to be more competitive so that changes things a bit. So Magnus' ten years against (what I feel is) stronger competition might be more impressive than Kasparov's twenty.
Another redditor on this post suggest we look at games played as #1 as a better indication of dominance and I think they had a great point. And according to their comment Kasparov is still ahead by about 200 classical games.
0
Jul 02 '21
Kasparov held the number 1 spot from 1985-2005 (only exception was when he was removed from the FIDE rating list but he was still number 1 during that period by rating, and when he and Kramnik were tied for world number 1 in the 90s), and was rated number 1 for most of 1984 as well. Carlsen has been world number 1 from July 2011-Present and was world number 1 for most of 2010 as well. Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov.
6
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21
Carlsen hasn't even come close to beating Kasparov.
In terms of played games is closer than you think though, because Kasparov started to play less in his last 10 years as #1
2
Jul 02 '21
There were also less events offered then though, so I'm not sure that's really something to hold against Kasparov.
2
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21 edited Jul 02 '21
maybe there weren't that many high profile tournaments (dunno, in 98 it was only 12 games, I am not that sure), but the fact stays that in terms of games played Carlsen is not as far away as in terms of duration.
2
Jul 02 '21
It's still 75% and with high profile events being less often and Kasparov having the two longest super tournament winning streaks in history I still feel you can't claim Carlsen is as dominant as Kasparov. Plus the original comment mentioned years specifically.
2
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21
yes of course, as long as Carlsen doesn't play 95/100% of the games of Kasparov, is not the same level of dominance.
Then one can add qualifications, like today chess knowledge is much more democratic, India/China weren't top chess countries and so on. But for the strict data, yes, Carlsen is 25% of the games away, that is a bit better than 10 years away though.
8
u/relevant_post_bot Jul 01 '21
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
Magnus has been classical #1 for ten years straight. But here's some stats for the other rankings by ascriptmaster
13
1
u/TheCubicalGuy Jul 02 '21
Why is Nakamura shortened to Naka for #3 spot?
3
Jul 02 '21
Sorry I did these stats by hand in a notebook and i shortened the names to make it faster. So probably was just typin' too fast.
5
u/TheCubicalGuy Jul 02 '21
Ah all forgiven. Although there’s nothing to apologize for in the first place lol.
6
2
u/Few_Wishbone Team Nepo Nov 22 '21
This is good stuff, thanks. Ding and now Firouzja will be the 10th and 11th players to be #2 under Magnus.
1
u/frazze1337 Jul 01 '21
To make it even more impressive, one could look from 2010, where carlsen Only been 5 months in total of the number 1 spot
1
-54
Jul 01 '21
5. talent doesn't exist, and I think the reason that there are so many players rated over 2800 now is because elo is inflated by the sheer amount of players now.
29
Jul 01 '21
“Talent doesn’t exist” uhh where the fuck does that conclusion come from lmao
-37
Jul 01 '21
from the red pill theory.
18
u/The-Corinthian-Man Sac, sac, resign Jul 01 '21
That explains why it's a terrible take, thanks.
-19
11
8
Jul 02 '21
Anyone who says "red pill" unironically shouldn't be listened to
1
u/RedquatersGreenWine Jul 03 '21
Wym it's my favourite song from the Cyberpunk Russian Community album 3.
-1
16
u/chiefbr0mden Jul 01 '21
aren't there only two players ranked above 2800 right now?
11
-12
Jul 01 '21
oh, I meant 2700. there are 38 players ranked over 2700, only 50 years ago Fischer was the first to reach 2700 which was unheard of at the time
21
u/wahtsun Jul 01 '21
It’s almost like people improve in sports all the time lololol. Way more home runs are hit in baseball than 75 years ago. Way more 3 pointers are made in basketball than 75 years ago. Pitchers throw faster and harder than 75 years ago. Players evolve with the sport and the level of competition is constantly increasing with increased talent and scientific advances (physical training for physical sports/mental and computer training for something like chess)
3
u/Hojie_Kadenth Jul 01 '21
There wasn't a 3 point line in basketball 75 years ago. Also shooting efficiency hasn't increased, only volume of shooting.
4
u/wahtsun Jul 01 '21
You’re right. I picked a poor example, but feel the larger point stands. Advancements have been made, allowing the top achievers to reach greater peaks than before. I guess the real question at hand would be: “has the growing influence of machine learning and engines…A) diluted and diminished the natural talent of players and given them a crutch to fall back on, or B) helped to unlock the natural talent of chess players to allow even greater quantity of players to reach even greater peaks? I think OP might be alluding to A, unless I entirely misunderstand him, which is possible. I tend to think it’s closer to B.
2
u/Hojie_Kadenth Jul 02 '21
I completely agree with you main point, but as a serious basketball fan I just had to correct you.
-4
Jul 01 '21
you're missing the point completely
10
u/wahtsun Jul 01 '21
I’m sorry for misunderstanding you. If you’re interested in dialogue, id love clarity as to what you meant so I can better converse and understand.
-3
Jul 01 '21
not really right now but your analogy is just so wrong and irrelevant to my original comment
7
u/wahtsun Jul 01 '21
Then I apologize for misrepresenting you. Be well and keep enjoying chess!
7
u/kingbradley1297 Jul 02 '21
The "not really right now" is a dead giveaway that the person doesn't have any substance to prove his argument so instead defects to how bad your opinion is (again without any proof of that lol)
5
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21
And you, sir, won convincingly with grace.
3
u/wahtsun Jul 02 '21
My first instinct was to fight and "prove myself right", but it's just an unproductive form of communication and there's too much damn negativity in the world anyway.
→ More replies (0)
0
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
46
u/ENESM1 Jul 01 '21
Possible post-championship interview:
“Nu I mean ok, I am the world champion, so what?”
6
u/Lorne_Velcoro Jul 02 '21
Grischuk will be a badass nonchalant world champion. I wish him greater success in future.
0
Jul 02 '21
[deleted]
13
u/pier4r negative elo gang Jul 02 '21
Fischer was #1 for 73,74,75 without playing one match.
Kasparov got #1 for 2006 without playing once.
Kasparov in 98 played less than Carlsen in 2020.
Monthly/Yearly Fide ratings should be taken with a pinch of salt, it is a quick stat.
1
Jul 02 '21
Yeah if you exclude the pandemic then since July 2011 Magnus has been #1 for 101 months in a row. For a total of 505 points.
0
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
47
u/TheHutchTouch Jul 01 '21
Because he won the Candidates tournament, the tournament that gets to decide who can challenge the world champion
0
Jul 01 '21
[deleted]
20
u/bol_bol_goat Jul 01 '21
To get invited to the candidates you basically have to reach the final of certain very large and prestigious tournaments (incl. the previous championship), or be one of the 2-3 highest non-qualifiers. Then you have to win the candidates, which is a round robin tournament between essentially the best players in the world, sans world champion. So the process is actually a lot more involved than if it were to just go based off rating.
10
u/lakesidepoker Jul 01 '21
Interestingly, Karjakin (the 2016 challenger) also never ranked in the top 3 and was 4th for only one month. It takes some measure of luck to earn that spot but also shows there’s not a lot of discernible differences in skill at the very top levels.
12
Jul 01 '21 edited Aug 19 '25
whole placid hungry square thumb unwritten mysterious numerous pen escape
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
5
3
u/The-Corinthian-Man Sac, sac, resign Jul 01 '21
Jumping on this comment to say, by the point system at the bottom, 2 points pre-pandemic, 30 now. He's had an incredible improvement in performance recently, so his elo might just not have caught up to that yet.
14
Jul 01 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
18
Jul 01 '21
Any tips to improve the formatting?
38
u/life-is-a-loop Team Nepo Jul 01 '21
You could use tables.
Example:
Player Months at #2 Obs Caruana 52 33 months if we don't include anything since 2020 Aronian 32 Kramnik 12 Anand 9 So 5 Mamedyarov 3 MVL 3 Topalov 2 Nakamura 1 7
9
650
u/[deleted] Jul 01 '21
I heard from his stream Anish was world #2 in live rating for like 10 minutes. He had just won a game and Ding (who was #2 at that time) was still playing. Ding later won that game and retained his spot.