PDA

View Full Version : FIDE Ratings April 2004



Oepty
23-03-2004, 11:21 AM
FIDE have finished their calculating for the April 2004 rating list and are asking players to check their ratings. Based on the expected changes on the FIDE website the top 12 players in Australian are going to be,
Ian Rogers 2582
Darryl Johansen 2489
Garry Lane 2449
Trevor Tao 2421
John-Paul Wallace 2410
Stephen Solomon 2404
Michael Gluzman 2403
Alex Wohl 2401
David Smerdon 2393
Leonid Sandler 2390
Mark Chapman 2388
Zong-Yuan Zhao 2386

This list is based on my own calculations so if there is an errors I apologise. The offical FIDE list will be out on the 1st of April.
Scott

arosar
26-03-2004, 09:05 AM
Hey you fellas. I had a bit of problem logging onto the site last night - did you have same prob? I did ping and tracert and it seems the site disappeared.

AR

Garvinator
26-03-2004, 10:05 AM
Hey you fellas. I had a bit of problem logging onto the site last night - did you have same prob? I did ping and tracert and it seems the site disappeared.

AR
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=497

Rincewind
26-03-2004, 11:59 AM
Hey you fellas. I had a bit of problem logging onto the site last night - did you have same prob? I did ping and tracert and it seems the site disappeared.

See. You haven't been paying attention. ;)

Oepty
01-04-2004, 02:06 PM
Hello. The ratings are now offical, with the ratings now available for look up or downloading from the FIDE website. There is one change to the ratings I calculated based on the expected changes. Aleks Wohls new ratings is 2399, not 2401 as I stated above.
Scott

Bill Gletsos
01-04-2004, 02:16 PM
Hello. The ratings are now offical, with the ratings now available for look up or downloading from the FIDE website. There is one change to the ratings I calculated based on the expected changes. Aleks Wohls new ratings is 2399, not 2401 as I stated above.
Scott
Based on FIDE's original information on their web site your rating of 2401 was correct. Obviously FIDE's original information was wrong.

Oepty
01-04-2004, 04:45 PM
Yep Bill, My maths was okay.
FIDE also seem to have mucked up the situation with the inactive flags. Trevor Tao and Ingela Eriksson are still shown inactive despite playing the Australian Championships. I guess FIDE has to be trusted to get something wrong, they always seem to.
Scott

chesslover
01-04-2004, 11:07 PM
the top 10 players in the world

1 Kasparov, Garry 2817
2 Anand, Viswanathan 2774
3 Kramnik, Vladimir 2764
4 Leko, Peter 2741
5 Topalov, Veselin 2737
6 Svidler, Peter 2733
7 Morozevich, Alexander 2732
8 Adams, Michael 2731
9 Polgar, Judit 2728
10 Ponomariov, Ruslan 2722

The world champion is ranked number 1, number 3 and number 10 :confused:

Bill Gletsos
01-04-2004, 11:15 PM
the top 10 players in the world

1 Kasparov, Garry 2817
2 Anand, Viswanathan 2774
3 Kramnik, Vladimir 2764
4 Leko, Peter 2741
5 Topalov, Veselin 2737
6 Svidler, Peter 2733
7 Morozevich, Alexander 2732
8 Adams, Michael 2731
9 Polgar, Judit 2728
10 Ponomariov, Ruslan 2722

The world champion is ranked number 1, number 3 and number 10 :confused:
Kasparov isnt World Champion by anyones reckoning even his own.

chesslover
01-04-2004, 11:22 PM
Kasparov isnt World Champion by anyones reckoning even his own.

i thought dude that he was whinging that Kramnik would not give him a rematch

and what about Bobby Fischer?? he is still the world champ by his reckoning as he did not play Karpov and kept the world champ title. Prior to FIDE the world champ title belonged to the world champ. That was the case during the time of Lasker and Steintz and Alekhine

Bill Gletsos
01-04-2004, 11:59 PM
i thought dude that he was whinging that Kramnik would not give him a rematch

and what about Bobby Fischer?? he is still the world champ by his reckoning as he did not play Karpov and kept the world champ title. Prior to FIDE the world champ title belonged to the world champ. That was the case during the time of Lasker and Steintz and Alekhine
So what.
Kasparov legitimately put any title he held on the line when he played Krammnik. Kasparov lost. End of Story.

As for Fischer perhaps back in 1975 people would have believed his claims that he was the true champion. But he never seriously played again except for that match in 92 against Spassky. Its now 2004. No one believes he is the worlds best except Bobby.

chesslover
02-04-2004, 12:15 AM
So what.
Kasparov legitimately put any title he held on the line when he played Krammnik. Kasparov lost. End of Story.

As for Fischer perhaps back in 1975 people would have believed his claims that he was the true champion. But he never seriously played again except for that match in 92 against Spassky. Its now 2004. No one believes he is the worlds best except Bobby.

OK. When Kramink beat Kasparove he got any title Kasparov had

And Fischer cannot be world champ. Yes

So 2 world champs in the world now. FIDE world champ number 10 abd unofficial world champ on number 3.

For fischer - how did the title pass his hand?? If you are saying that it went away when he did not play karpov, then kasparov's went away when he did nnot play the FIDE champs. This means that Kasparov had nothing to give Kramnik, and so Kramnik is not the world champ

If Kraminik is also the world champ, then Fisher still has the title as he never lost it. But Fisher is not the best player in the world at all. But kasparov is , even though he is not the world champ :eek:

:confused:

Bill Gletsos
02-04-2004, 12:25 AM
OK. When Kramink beat Kasparove he got any title Kasparov had

And Fischer cannot be world champ. Yes

So 2 world champs in the world now. FIDE world champ number 10 abd unofficial world champ on number 3.

For fischer - how did the title pass his hand?? If you are saying that it went away when he did not play karpov, then kasparov's went away when he did nnot play the FIDE champs. This means that Kasparov had nothing to give Kramnik, and so Kramnik is not the world champ

If Kraminik is also the world champ, then Fisher still has the title as he never lost it. But Fisher is not the best player in the world at all. But kasparov is , even though he is not the world champ :eek:

:confused:
You know the history of this as well as I do Ar, so stop acting like a dope.

Fischer lost the FIDe title when he refused to play Karpov. BY the time he played again in 92 no one seriously considerd him world champion.
Kasparov lost the FIDE title when he and Short refused to play under FIDE's direction. However unlike Fischer, Kasparov continued to play.
Now FIDE devalued their title when they started using KO tournaments.
Kasparov started the PCA in a means of having a world title. He defended "this" title against Short then Anand and finally Krammnik. This title has/had credability because Kasparov was clearly the worlds best player.

So FIDE has a devalued title of which Pono is the current holder.
Krammnik is the holder of a title that can be linked back to the classical world champions but it is an "unofficial" title as far as FIDE is concerned.
Of course it can be argued that FIDE acknowledge all this with their plans to create a unified title.

chesslover
02-04-2004, 12:34 AM
You know the history of this as well as I do Ar, so stop acting like a dope.

Fischer lost the FIDe title when he refused to play Karpov. BY the time he played again in 92 no one seriously considerd him world champion.
Kasparov lost the FIDE title when he and Short refused to play under FIDE's direction. However unlike Fischer, Kasparov continued to play.
Now FIDE devalued their title when they started using KO tournaments.
Kasparov started the PCA in a means of having a world title. He defended "this" title against Short then Anand and finally Krammnik. This title has/had credability because Kasparov was clearly the worlds best player.

So FIDE has a devalued title of which Pono is the current holder.
Krammnik is the holder of a title that can be linked back to the classical world champions but it is an "unofficial" title as far as FIDE is concerned.
Of course it can be argued that FIDE acknowledge all this with their plans to create a unified title.

Firstly, I assure you that I am not Amiel

Secondly, I get what you say. If Fischer was playing as well as Kasparov did when he "lost" the world champ to FIDE, you are saying that he too would have a legitimate right to the world champ title

By that logic, if Kramnik was palying very badly like Fischer was playing he too would have no credibility in stating that he is the world champ. Right?

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 12:48 AM
Firstly, I assure you that I am not Amiel

Secondly, I get what you say. If Fischer was playing as well as Kasparov did when he "lost" the world champ to FIDE, you are saying that he too would have a legitimate right to the world champ title

By that logic, if Kramnik was palying very badly like Fischer was playing he too would have no credibility in stating that he is the world champ. Right?
ill step in here as i follow this saga about the world champs ;)

Fischer has no claims regarding the world championships after he failed to come to terms with fide in 1975. there have been no creditable claims that fide were being underhanded in their dealings in this matter. Karpov was the person who was to meet fischer. So Karpov was declared world champion.

The situation after 1990 with kasparov is less clear. As we know, the very honest and fair fellow, campomenes(spell check) was president of fide at that time. kasparov believed that the grandmasters should leave fide and organisation their own chess organisation. Hence the birth of the professional chess association. When kasparov failed to defend the fide world championship in 1993, karpov was declared champion as he was the person who was supposed to play kasparov in 1993.

this time though, most of the chess world believed that kasparov was the rightful world champion and was viewed as such. kasparov played nigel short under the control of pca and won their match in 1993. Pca folded as an organisation and was rebadged as the grandmasters association. in 1995 kaspa defended his title against anand and won again.

At this stage fide were trying to get karpov to be able to defend the fide world championships. they then made the appauling decision to hold the fide world champ match in iraq in 1996 :eek: this decision flew in the face of un sanctions and was condemned by almost every chess organisation in the world, including russia.

the new fide president wanted to get chess into the olympics and saw that to acheive this aim, the fide world title must be come more open to be won, hence the birth of the fide world knockout tournament. This format for a world title has been the most critisised format in the history of chess :doh:

during this time of the knockout, kasparov and kramnik did not play in the fide knockout and were organising details for the braingames world championship.
Kramnik won with a score of +2 =13 -0.

the current situation for resolving all this is:

Kramnik is to play Peter Leko later this year, around september
Kasparov is to face the winner of the fide ko early next year i think.

the winner of both of these matches will play each other for the classical world championship.

then the title goes back to the old cycle of candidate matches.

Bill Gletsos
02-04-2004, 12:50 AM
Firstly, I assure you that I am not Amiel

Secondly, I get what you say. If Fischer was playing as well as Kasparov did when he "lost" the world champ to FIDE, you are saying that he too would have a legitimate right to the world champ title

By that logic, if Kramnik was palying very badly like Fischer was playing he too would have no credibility in stating that he is the world champ. Right?
No, wrong.
Like Kasparov and unlike Fischer, Krammnik continues to compete.
Krammnik can only lose his "title" by either losing it in a match to another player(possibly Leko in their upcoming match this year), withdrawing from competition all together like Fischer or dying like Alekhine.

chesslover
02-04-2004, 12:55 AM
the current situation for resolving all this is:

Kramnik is to play Peter Leko later this year, around september
Kasparov is to face the winner of the fide ko early next year i think.

the winner of both of these matches will play each other for the classical world championship.

then the title goes back to the old cycle of candidate matches.

that is good info ggray. good summary especially for a queenslander :eek:

I remember reading that the FIDE KOs will still continue but the difference is that the winner will not be the world champ. They will be called another name and get another title

chesslover
02-04-2004, 12:57 AM
No, wrong.
Like Kasparov and unlike Fischer, Krammnik continues to compete.
Krammnik can only lose his "title" by either losing it in a match to another player(possibly Leko in their upcoming match this year), withdrawing from competition all together like Fischer or dying like Alekhine.

I gettit now :owned:

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2004, 01:31 AM
I agree with gg's summary.

Fischer ceased to be World Champ because he insisted on World Championship arrangements that were needlessly favourable to the champion out of the options available at the time. While his psychology may have been manipulated to drive him to this position, his stance was completely out of order and not playing a serious game for another 20 years didn't do him any favours.

Kasparov's split with FIDE was over money and conditions and was supported by his FIDE-approved challenger Nigel Short. What Kasparov did was politically provocative but FIDE should have recognised Kasparov and Short's entitlement to play their match on their own terms. FIDE didn't do that because they had financially overcommitted themselves - it was all about money from their side too.

Lucena
03-04-2004, 03:18 PM
Yaay my Fide's finally over 2200 :owned:

Garvinator
03-04-2004, 06:05 PM
Yaay my Fide's finally over 2200 :owned:
aint inflation great ;)

JGB
19-04-2004, 04:06 PM
How often does FIDA post its rating changes. Every month or was it every quarter?

Thanks.

Bill Gletsos
19-04-2004, 04:09 PM
How often does FIDA post its rating changes. Every month or was it every quarter?

Thanks.
Every 3 mths.

arosar
20-04-2004, 01:04 PM
Boys . . . need a bit of help here pls. fide.com is down at the moment and I need to check the ratings of a coupla players to see if they qualify for entering into a tourn. So any one of youse have knowledge of some other way of accessing 04/04 fide ratings? Cheers boys.

AR

Bill Gletsos
20-04-2004, 01:14 PM
Boys . . . need a bit of help here pls. fide.com is down at the moment and I need to check the ratings of a coupla players to see if they qualify for entering into a tourn. So any one of youse have knowledge of some other way of accessing 04/04 fide ratings? Cheers boys.

AR
I think I have the FIDE list downloaded on my machine at home.

Post their names here and I'll check tonight for you.

arosar
20-04-2004, 02:22 PM
Thanks Bill.

The players in question are:

E Agulto
A Camer
R Samar

A question on RS. He once achieved a rating of 2300+. Not sure if he's played 24 rated games - but is he entitled to an FM title provided he's played 24 rated games? Not sure either if those 24 have to be within a time period.

AR

Bill Gletsos
20-04-2004, 02:53 PM
Thanks Bill.

The players in question are:

E Agulto
A Camer
R Samar

A question on RS. He once achieved a rating of 2300+. Not sure if he's played 24 rated games - but is he entitled to an FM title provided he's played 24 rated games? Not sure either if those 24 have to be within a time period.

AR
Ah, I did not realise you meant Aussies.
I have their details handy.
Agulto played no rated games in the April period so his rating is still 2180.
Camer likewise so his rating is 2084.
So to for Samar whose rating is 2254.

As for Raul being at one stage over 2300 that is correct. However I'm not sure if he had played the necessary 24 games prior to this.

Lucena
20-04-2004, 03:41 PM
aint inflation great ;)
Hey shut up :mad: anyway it's going to go back down if I'm not careful-I had a pretty bad doeberl

ursogr8
06-05-2004, 01:13 PM
A 10 player round robin is proceeding weekly at the Box Hill Chess Club, with the express purpose of more players gaining a FIDE rating.
Four of the 10 players already have a FIDE rating. The other six are attempting the holy grail.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the ACF rating and FIDE ratings of the 4 players who have both.

Player #1 FIDE=2035, ACF=1793
Player #2 FIDE=2164, ACF=1947
Player #3 FIDE=1994, ACF=1764
Player #4 FIDE=2048, ACF=1843

Average differential (FIDE-ACF) rating is 223.

Only a small sample I know, but the 70 points that Klaatu Barada Nikto gave us seems a short change. I am looking to improving my rating in 2004. :uhoh:

starter

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2004, 03:20 PM
A 10 player round robin is proceeding weekly at the Box Hill Chess Club, with the express purpose of more players gaining a FIDE rating.
Four of the 10 players already have a FIDE rating. The other six are attempting the holy grail.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the ACF rating and FIDE ratings of the 4 players who have both.

Player #1 FIDE=2035, ACF=1793
Player #2 FIDE=2164, ACF=1947
Player #3 FIDE=1994, ACF=1764
Player #4 FIDE=2048, ACF=1843

Average differential (FIDE-ACF) rating is 223.

Only a small sample I know, but the 70 points that Klaatu Barada Nikto gave us seems a short change. I am looking to improving my rating in 2004. :uhoh:

starter
I think Klaatu would suggest that their FIDE ratings are in no way represenative of their true playing strength, especially in comparison to the likes of ACF 2200 players. :whistle:

In fact Gort believes they are on average overrated by 223 points. :hand:

ursogr8
06-05-2004, 05:01 PM
I think Klaatu would suggest that their FIDE ratings are in no way represenative of their true playing strength, especially in comparison to the likes of ACF 2200 players. :whistle:



Every-one would agree with the four ACF ratings being 100% reliable given these are active players who participate in a number of geographical pools.

Do you think the 4 FIDE ratings are reliable? Technically reliable that is.



In fact Gort believes they are on average overrated by 223 points. :hand:

Which number is 223 too high? The average ACF figure, or the average FIDE figure ; for these four?

starter

Bill Gletsos
06-05-2004, 07:37 PM
Do you think the 4 FIDE ratings are reliable? Technically reliable that is.
Nope.
The 2035 is based on 9 games.
The 2164 on 70 games but I think the FIDE system originally overrated him and has never caught up.
The 1994 based on 18 games. Originally rated 2048 on his first 9 games back in Oct 2002 he then lost 54 points in the next list. FIDE just hasnt caught up yet with his initial overrating.
The 2048 based on 9 games back in Oct 2002. This initial rating is I think from the same tournament where the 1994 rated player also got his 2048 initial rating.


Which number is 223 too high? The average ACF figure, or the average FIDE figure ; for these four?
Dont be a goose my mexican friend. ;)
The FIDE of course. :hand:

ursogr8
07-05-2004, 12:07 PM
Nope.
The 2035 is based on 9 games.
The 2164 on 70 games but I think the FIDE system originally overrated him and has never caught up.
The 1994 based on 18 games. Originally rated 2048 on his first 9 games back in Oct 2002 he then lost 54 points in the next list. FIDE just hasnt caught up yet with his initial overrating.
The 2048 based on 9 games back in Oct 2002. This initial rating is I think from the same tournament where the 1994 rated player also got his 2048 initial rating.


Dont be a goose my mexican friend. ;)


Thanks Bill

So, it seems to me that 6 (non FIDE-rated) folk are paying good money to get a FIDE rating, by calibrating themselves against 4 (FIDE-rated) folk whose ratings are not worth a pinch of cockies whatever.
Who is the goose here?

starter

Alan Shore
07-05-2004, 05:27 PM
Thanks Bill

So, it seems to me that 6 (non FIDE-rated) folk are paying good money to get a FIDE rating, by calibrating themselves against 4 (FIDE-rated) folk whose ratings are not worth a pinch of cockies whatever.
Who is the goose here?

starter

Surely it's obvious those who first got FIDE ratings with the 2000 theshold were horribly overrated.. and still are. Bill's dead right.

ursogr8
07-05-2004, 10:42 PM
Surely it's obvious those who first got FIDE ratings with the 2000 theshold were horribly overrated.. and still are. Bill's dead right.

BD
If you look at my post #33 you will see that I agreeing with Bill. The four players who have FIDE ratings in fact have a very unreliable number as their FIDE number (based on Bill's analysis).
The other 6 players are now paying big money to calibrate themselves relative to these unreliable FIDE ratings. As well as paying big money for something that is not technically reliable, the players money is actually going overseas to FIDE, not staying in the Australian community.
I ask again; who is the goose in all this?
starter

ursogr8
07-05-2004, 10:48 PM
In fact Gort believes they are on average overrated by 223 points.


What does this mean Bill?
Who/What is Gort?
What does over-rated by 223 points mean?

starter

Bill Gletsos
07-05-2004, 11:00 PM
What does this mean Bill?
Who/What is Gort?
If you knew the reference to Klaatu Barada Nikto then you would know who Gort is. ;)

What does over-rated by 223 points mean?
I think it is obvious what it means.
However as a hint re-read your post #29.

eclectic
07-05-2004, 11:01 PM
What does this mean Bill?
Who/What is Gort?
What does over-rated by 223 points mean?

starter
type in "gort" and Bill's avatar logo into google to find out :)

eclectic

ps gort does appear on the cover of ringo starr's album "goodnight vienna"

Bill Gletsos
11-05-2004, 01:53 PM
starter,

For more information on Klaatu and Gort check out Fox Classics on Foxtel or Optus at 8.30pm on Sunday 15th May.

ursogr8
11-05-2004, 02:50 PM
Nope.
The 2035 is based on 9 games.
The 2164 on 70 games but I think the FIDE system originally overrated him and has never caught up.
The 1994 based on 18 games. Originally rated 2048 on his first 9 games back in Oct 2002 he then lost 54 points in the next list. FIDE just hasnt caught up yet with his initial overrating.
The 2048 based on 9 games back in Oct 2002. This initial rating is I think from the same tournament where the 1994 rated player also got his 2048 initial rating.


Dont be a goose my mexican friend. ;)
The FIDE of course. :hand:
First, let me say that you Bill, eclectic, and BD can set puzzles for me on Gort! Klaatu barada nikto , all you like. I will be ignoring all of it (except I did type into Google as suggested and it came up with the web-site of a professed AFL loving geek in Sydney called Frank Arrigo. I don't know what you blokes are on, but seems to me that you could do with a good dose of cold weather).

So, I understand you to say Bill that in our Box Hill FIDE 10 player round-robin, which has 4 FIDE rated-players, and 6 non-FIDE-rated players, is starting from the base that the 4 FIDE-rated palyers are on average 223 over-rated on the FIDE scale. :eek:
That means that at the end of the tournament, when the other 6 have calibrated themselves against the over-rated 4, the outcome will be 10 players over-rated by an average of 223 points. :eek:
And we are paying top money, out of Australia, to do this. :rolleyes:

starter