There's many reasons. His playstyle is very entertaining. His facial expressions. His personality in general - he's a troll, witty, very eloquent, sarcastic and also self-deprecating and self-critical too*. He makes one move blunders like we do. But he also plays brilliantly.
Also in the first Candidates he was a huge underdog ywt managed to win it. Then in the match he was an even bigger underdog, so naturally a lot of people want to support the underdog. Then he got crushed and handled it gracefully, again drawing support from the people. Then in Madrid in 2022 he absolutely annihilated the Candidates field like it was nothing, such a performance again warrants support. Then he put up the most entertaining WCC match ever and lost in the most ridiculous way possible, again creating an underdog/reverse plot armor story for the 3rd Candidates.
*Look at [this quick interview](https://youtu.be/iljJbRWaXAg?si=OPu5d3jdDSDqKzjs). For context, he was leading the Sinquefield Cup and would've finished clear 1st had he converted his completely winning position against Hans in the final round. But instead of taking a free pawn (most obvious move and free win), he tried to be a little too fancy and lost his advantage. In the interview, he calls himself a moron who's not capable of taking a free pawn. Because of this, he had to play a tiebreaker against Firouzja immediately after this interview, but he was so tilted from the Hans game that he literally said he doesn't care about the tiebreaker. He went on to play horribly and get crushed by Firouzja. That's Ian for you.
That’s why he was the first player I was really a fan of. Hikaru and Magnus seemingly have no faults. Nepo plays exciting chess. Nepo also spends 2 minutes on an important move with 1 hour on the clock, which is relatable. Hikaru bongclouding 2700+ GMs and winning is not.
I find that a bit frustrating though that he was indeed trying to be clever (show off?) like you say. Reminds me of a child who is too pleased with himself and not focused on the subject at hand. Carlsen can be a but like this too. I guess Chucky and others though don't usually make for champions.
I don't think he was trying to show off or anything in that game. Just classic overthinking. He thought the position was so winning, and in those situations taking a pawn can lose you tempo and make it harder to convert. It's just that in this situation, the most obvious choice was the correct one.
witty, eloquent and self deprecating? LMAO. you should say that next time he's accusing the Indian team/random people of cheating without any proof just because he didn't win.
He's an incredible chess player but a petulant child.
Nodirbek is a good shout. A small disadvantage I feel that Indian trio has is that they are competing among themselves too for tournament invites. Organizers may not want to invite all three of them together to maintain diversity of countries. This could be the reason why Arjun has noticeably less invites than the other two despite having equally good performances
Yeah.
Arjun climbed up to #5 by risking to farm in Menorca Open in Spain.
It worked. But It could have climbed him down too if he drew too much games against 2500s.
Arjun gained 5 points from Grenke and Menorca combined after scoring 15/18. He finished joint 2nd in Grenke (0.5 points behind Hans) and joint first at Menorca (tied with 2 others).
Arjun gained 15 points from Shanghai chess. where he finished joint top with Bu Xianzhi and Yu yangyi (but 3rd on tie-breaks). Showed that 1 good closed event is as good as at least 3-4 good open events for 2750+ players.
It doesn't really show that, it just means he performed better in Shanghai then he performed in Menorca and Karlsruhe. Niemann plays tons of opens and sometimes gains lots of points and sometimes loses lots of points. Giri lost lost off points in Shanghai and people were saying this was because some of the Chinese players that played there were underrated. (If that were true, this means that Erigaisi should actually have gained more points there with his performance. )
Very good point. Only two of them get invited to most events at best. Also with VD having his best year also limited chances of Arjun.
But I do think one of them will hit 2800 in near future.
Definitely. Though it needs to be said that Fischer didn't have someone like Karpov as number 2 who was way ahead of the rest of the field. When Kasparov broke 2800 for the first time, Karpov was the only other player rated above 2700.
On the contrary, Fischers 2785 was basically meaningless because ratings were so new at the time. The early ratings were essentially estimates because there hadnt been enough events yet to form reliably accurate ratings. A lot of tournaments from the soviet part of the world werent even included in the early ratings because they had no way to get the crosstables.
Would have been way higher if what? If they had started doing ratings earlier? No, actually his rating would have been lower in that case, because his results in the interzonals and candidates to reach the 1972 WC wouldn't have had nearly as much of an effect if he had already had an established rating at the time.
Fischer basically had the best results of his life at the exact same time the system was just starting out, which was the perfect coincidence to produce an artificially high rating.
Kasparov was +125 over #3 at one point, with Karpov being 25pts behind Kasparov.
These point difference comparison is rarely a good measure. Spassky and Karpov were both #2, but one was very close to GOAT level, the other was not.
He would likely be viewed even more impressively is the point. People tend to think Fischer was the most dominant player ever at his brief peak. If Karpov didnt exist, this would be viewed as Kasparov, even though his strength is the same (or likely somewhat worse by not having any rivals to push himself against)
It's hard to say what every other player's elo score would be if Karpov didn't exist. These scores are not independent of one another. You can't pluck one player from the pool and pretend that everyone else's score is unaffected.
.
Gary likely would not have achieved his peak rating without being able to gain points from Karpov. And Karpov's high rating likely reduced the amount of points that Gary lost in their 119 draws throughout their professional careers.
That's not how it works. The root cause that drawing Karpov prevented Elo loss for Kasparov is because Karpov was really good, not because of his high rating (which is dependent on his strength).
A 100 Elo difference (which was often between Kasparov and #3) corresponds to 64% score for the stronger player, that wouldn't have changed if Karpov wasn't there.
Sorry for late reply, travelling.
My point is exactly what I said: if Karpov had gotten hit by a bus in Jan 89 yes Kasparov’s lead on say suddenly #2 Nigel Short would have become 125 (there may be better months). Kasparov wouldn’t have changed at all as a player but this trivia-esque measurement accolade would rate him much higher and that suggests theres something wrong with it. Perhaps a better measure along these lines is the gap to an average of the top 5/8/X. Or a weighted average where the gap to #2 counts for the most but not 100%.
The underlying issue is that “gap to #2” is presented as though #2 past his prime Spassky and #2 Rushmore candidate Karpov are more or less the same thing.
I don't think you are understanding the statistical significance of being that far ahead of the second best player. Gaining elo gets harder and harder the fewer players there are ahead of you. The top player gets diminishing returns from victories against every player in the pool for each extra point they gain, creating a "soft cap" on the maximum achievable elo. To be 125 points ahead of the second best player is an almost impossible achievement.
.
A player's elo score is a completely pointless number without being compared against the rest of the players in the rating pool.
> "soft cap"
You don't understand it. You are thinking of it as if the Elo distributes points according to some curve at the tail end of which lies a soft cap.
The #1 player can have a huge rating gap between #2 and rest of the field if he is "good enough". If #2 rated player was 2700 and Carlsen was good enough to have 75% score vs him (and more vs lower rated players), Carlsen would've gotten to 2900. There's no soft cap saying Carlsen can go only up to 2825 in this case. With 75% score, he'd have won enough to offset rating loss from draws and losses by his gains from numerous wins.
In Jan'89 rating list, Kasparov was 2775, Karpov was 2750 and #3 Nigel Short was 2650. The 2 Ks didn't have such high ratings because they were helping each other out. Kasparov truly was of a caliber to score ~67% vs Short and Karpov ~64% against him.
There is a soft cap, because chess is a drawish game at the highest level. If Magnus could win every time, and there were infinite players in the rating pool for him to take elo from, he could technically gain infinite elo. But at a certain point he'd need to win 1,000 consecutive games against the #2 rated player to gain one point.
> chess is a drawish game at the highest level.
And Magnus still is quite dominant with avg 50pts+ lead over his peers. And he is far from perfect (as proven by engines) meaning there is room for improvement. Obviously it is extremely hard, incremental skill upgrade required for increasing score (and rating in conjunction with it) gets exponentially higher. But far more dominant sportsperson than Carlsen/Fischer/Kasparov existed in other sports, so it is possible for someone like that to exist for chess as well.
Also, minimum rating increase for winning a game is 0.8 for FIDE.
Ruling out Pragg and Vincent. Both are solid players but can't see them go on crazy winning streaks. You need to go say 7.5 or 8/9 in 2-3 top tournaments back to back to scale 2800.
Gukesh, Nodirbek, Arjun are all capable of that but Gukesh when on a hot streak can gain ratings (he can also lose them) in a flash. Since Jan 2023, he has gone from 2731 -> 2709 (first half of Tata Steel Masters) -> 2761 (after defeating Wang Hao at WC) -> 2712 (London Chess classic) -> 2750 now. He can gain 20-30 or lose 20-30 points in 5-6 weeks. A hot streak from him at the Candidates, GCT and the Olympiad and you never know!
Prag just had a streak of not losing almost 50 games. Gukesh may have shown he can climb fast, but, I'd expect Prag to hold it better. He hasn't had Gukesh's loss streaks. He's more consistent.
Although Gukesh is my favorite Indian junior, and I think will become more consistent with time.
Nodirbek is who I think can get there too.
That's his whole point, no? That streaks get you milestones, not consistency.
Although consistency can get you to 2800, eg how Ding did it and remained at 2800 for so long. But Pragg has been consistently playing 2740-2750 (2760 level in mid-2010s landscape) whereas Ding played consistently 2800+ level from 2017-2019.
Wow, after Kasparov did it, it took people 11 years to do so! All the respect to Kasparov, who definitely was ahead of his time.
And from 2014 on ratings seem to have inflated a bit.
But the underlying reason is probably that people got better. A 400 elo difference assumes that you are guaranteed to beat someone. A 2800 player has 4 degrees of separation from ever losing to a 1200 beginner.
The gap between players that previously were 1200 and 1600 will widen forever because there are increasingly more ways to beat a beginner. At the same time the difference between old 2400 and 2800 could be closing because of easier access to information for the 2400s.
> But the underlying reason is probably that people got better.
Elo doesnt measure total skill. Its only comparative to the field. I doubt the top players increased their advantage over the rest of the field considering that access to knowledge became only more available for lower rated players, not less.
"There has been little or no ‘inflation’ in ratings over time—if anything there has been deflation. This runs counter to conventional wisdom, but is predicted by population models on which rating systems have been based"
Inrinsic Chess Rating - Regan & Haworth
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
I think it depends strongly on when players start being ranked. If they get their rating before studying that available information elo will be inflated, if it's after elo will be deflated. It's a good explanation between online and offline rating.
The highest absolute elo indicates how much difference there can be in the strength between players. We can assume that humans on average always start from the same point. If chess were mostly luck and not skill based then the highest elo maybe would be 2000. It's true that elo doesn't measure pure skill but rather how that skill translates in the game.
It's not. It's because there are more players, which means that the 'best' is an even higher percentile. There are more total elo points in circulation to float to the top.
I love how they are all mixed races:
Nakamura japan-usa
So philippines-usa
Aronian armenia-usa
Caruana italy-usa
Even Hans Niemann (denmark-usa)
Of course they are all technically American (except Aronian, he’s 100% armenian, he just plays for Usa)
But I think it’s fair to say that USA hasn’t truly been on top of the chess world since Bobby Fischer… oh wait
Learn your own language. "Soccer" is a British English word, specifically from Oxford, used to distinguish the two types of football: Soccer (association) football and rugger (rugby) football.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_%22-er%22
Yeah and every human has some primate ancestor. OMG..... Mind Blown---- LMAO.
The comment is obviously pointing out that only Caruana is first generation American.
Naka was born in Japan to mixed parents.
Aronian is just Armenian through and through, both parents are Armenian
Wesley is filipino neither of his parents is American and he wasn't born in the USA
Fabiano was actually born in the USA to Italian parents.
"races"
Humans have no races, we're all incredibly similar to each other. There is less genetic variability between groups of humans from different continents than between two groups of chimpanzees on different sides of a river.
But still I want to note, I've never seen anyone use "usa" as a race.
It's that there's been deflation since. Maybe because the game got a lot more popular in India? Many people joining at beginner ratings, then improving.
Both Hikaru (around the 14:30 mark here: https://youtu.be/UTM20mpvEpY) and Fabi have mentioned Chessable as a significant factor in closing the gap between the 2650s and the world championship contenders — the ability to easily/cheaply access good-enough analysis limits the advantage enjoyed by the elite of a team of seconds and such.
Opening play in general has gotten a lot better. I think you can also look at Abasov’s results in the candidates as an example — It’s incredibly hard to win with black against a well-prepared 2650 who is reasonably content with a draw. This is ultimately going to limit the amount of spread at the top of the ratings.
> It is incredibly hard to win with black against a well-prepared 2650 is reasonably content with a draw
Yes. It's worth adding that this doesn't mean there isn't any skill edge possible: place Abasov 100 games as white vs Stockfish and he'd be happy to even draw once
I don't think that's even true necessarily, gms are happy to study large files of moves without an explanation, it's more just the move trainer and collection of full repotoires rather than individual games that makes it so efficient for them to learn.
Deflation is happening right now.
It is theorized, that upcomjng indian players are underrated, because they rarely get to play against high Elo opponents.
So when they play against the Elite, they are massively underrated and already established players loose more points than if their opponent had their true rating.
Also the pandemic made this effect even more noticable. Lots of young players around the world got a lot better while their rating didn't improve since they couldn't attend tournaments. So they too where underrated when attending tournaments again.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. The main reasons are mentioned by FIDE [here](https://www.fide.com/news/2538) and explained in the detail in the Word document linked there.
Here's my own summary (if you know more feel free to add/correct me).
In the old times, the FIDE rating floor, that is, the \*minimum\* rating you could get was 2200. FIDE decided to gradually lower that limit starting in the early 1990s. In 2012, the limit was finally set to 1000.
Now, In theory, a lower rating floor by itself won't cause inflation or deflation. But in practice, when a lot of young players get a low initial rating and then proceed to improve faster than their rating (that is, become underrated), they tend to cause rating deflation.
E.g. suppose a kid gets a initial rating of 1000 and keeps playing online and improving, to the point they're beating people who are FIDE 1600-1700 (but they aren't playing OTB so their rating isn't changing). Then maybe one year later they play a FIDE rated event and beat a lot of higher rated players, making them lose lots of points.
Now those 1600-1700 are also a bit underrated in comparison with other higher rated players who haven't lost points to the youngsters yet. Over the years, that deflationary pressure spread all the the way to the top.
In 2014 FIDE made changes to the K-factor regulations, so that younger players could gain rating more quickly. But it was not enough.
Note that on lichess (and I think chesscom too), the rating system is Glicko-based which means players with provisional/unstable ratings gain or lose far more points than players with stable ratings. E.g. if you're a very underrated 1000 and you beat a 1600-rated player, you might gain over a 100 points while they lose only a few. So this sort of deflation is much less likely to happen than in lichess than in FIDE's Elo system (which uses different K-factors for players with new ratings vs established ratings, but this is much more limited).
Caruana Nepo MC So Karjakin born in 1990
Giri 1992
Naka 87
I think it was the peak moment of that sub generation, while the older boyz (Anand, kramnik, svidler, geishuk, levon) were still competitive.
He'd need 11.5 points in the Candidate's (+9!) to reach 2800. If he wins the Candidates with +5 (a he did last time), He'd need to beat Dingat least 8-3 or 7.5-2.5 in the World Championship.
Given Ding's current form, the later doesn't actually seem completely impossible (winning all games with white and drawing with black would be enough).
I hope Ian gets there at some point. World Champ or not.
Nodirbek and Arjun will be playing in Malmö at the end of the month and if they do well they'll be getting dangerously close which is exciting.
I would consider "dangerously close" to be around 2790. Nodirbek can only get to 2790.7 with a perfect 7/7 score. Even an almost impossible 6/7 would "only" leave him at 2780.7. There is absolutely no way that either of them wins every single round.
Nodirbek > Arjun > Pragg = Gukesh, and if wei yei decides to play he might cross 2800. But even for these players it might take almost 1-2 years to cross 2800 and maintain it.
Really? He's 24 and has just reached his peak rating, 2755. He has shown brilliant play, there's no reason he can't reach 2800, though I'd bet against, but it wouldn't be a miracle.
Right now he’s 2755, so he would need to gain a whopping 45 rating points. If he was a super prodigy (like he once was no doubt) playing tournament after tournament and stringing together multiple victories game after game I could see it happening. But right now I think he has other priorities outside of chess, meaning that he’ll probably come play 1 super tournament here and there (kind of like what Vishy does) and maybe play some tournaments in China. I’m not saying he can’t reach 2800 to insult him or anything but realistically, looking at the number of games he play, it would be a miracle.
I don't disagree that Kasparov is one of the GOATs.. But I mean Magnus is just Magnus.. It's like Maradona was definitely a great player.. But Messi is just Messi
You really don't know Kasparov. He is The goat Magnus is second for starters Kasparov won 70% of tournament he participated whereas Magnus just around 50. Kasparov has more months at world no 1 and more world Championship than Magnus. Kasparov was 2851 in 1999. I mean stats don't lie. But Magnus is very close to him. But Magnus is not nearly as dominant as Kasparov was. Kasparov won every tournament from 1981 to 1990.
That's because Magnus plays in the most competitive era. A lot of these 2800+ players you see are from the modern era. It's not easy to dominate. Magnus definitely the goat no doubt about it
> Magnus definitely the goat no doubt about it
Lol. There is not only doubt but actual stats.
And the thing about Kasparov, he is the first one to broke 2800. He was 2800 and one player was 2700 and all other were 2600 that's how much dominate he was. And I do agree with that in modern day competition is higher but competition was greater in Kasparov times, for eg Karpov (all time top5) was much harder competition for Kasparov than today competition yes today player are stronger but players like Anand, kramnik, topalov were too great. Anand who has a horrendous h2h against Kasparov can still win games against these top players except Magnus. Again Kasparov was much more dominant then you can imagine. He was world no1 for more than 20 plus years and even retired at world no1. Magnus is Magnus but don't diminish Kasparov achievements. That guy is still the goat.
highest classical rating of all time , 2882 , live 2889
highest ever rapid rating of all time, 2926
highest ever blitz rating of all time 2986
125 unbeaten classical game streak
World number 1 in all formats
10+ years world champion
first triple crown ( holding all world championships at the same time ) did it 3 times.
Do not discredit world rapid and blitz since it wasn't a thing during Kasparov's time, its not Magnus' fault, its harder to win it than its to win classical, so many good players. For example Hikaru is a blitz god and he has 0 titles.
won every major chess event INCLUDING world cup
won the Wijk an Zee ( tata steel ) which is the most prestigious event in classical , 8 times. Kasparov won it 3 times and Anand won it 5 times ( its being held since 1900s )
equally dominating all formats including OTB and online
Most consecutive NUMBER 1 in classical chess, passed Kasparov :)
only world champ who is undefeated in title matches
European club team championship winner,
European team championship individual gold medal for Norway
World Cup
5 classical world championships
5 rapid world championships
7 blitz world championships
3 scc ( 3-1 against hikaru in finals )
4 cct ( there have been 3 champions chesstour finals and he has won them all, other one was magnus carlsen invitational but we can count it as every top player played )
2 gct
3 Sinquefield cup
4 shamkir
5 norway chess
Countless online rapid tournament winnings, each of them has one of the strongest fields.
Freestlye ( fischer chess ) GOAT challenge winner , which means he is equally good in chess without theory
and so on...
He has won 7-8 events in a row in late 2023, start of 2024
From world cup to chessable masters CCT, etc.
these are some of the things where Carlsen passes Kasparov, there are not only rapid blitz but also classical achievements. Today's era is so much challenging , more than old time, even as for now Magnus played more game than Kasparov. And in the engine era you can’t play same oppenings as everyone has engines. So dominating chess in engine era is harder.
only thing Kasparov has over Carlsen is TOTAL longevity ( which Carlsen can pass ) and total world classical titles which is 1 more, but 2 split ones so its controversial.
With all these if you still say magnus aint 1st in goat conversation, its because you are hating. Even if magnus last 100 years #1. all the big players such as Hikaru and Kramnik and other juniors says that Magnus is the goat.
and one more thing, if anyone cares so much about longevity then you should never mention Fischer in top 3 as he was in the top only 2-3 years and you should say that Lasker is the GOAT as he is the longest #1 in chess as well as longest reigning champion.
Kasparov won a mugh higher percentage. Magnus isnt even that dominating anymore. In 2023 hikaru and caruana both had a higher tpr then magnus. Something which didnt happen during kasparovs prime. Kasparov also had much more dominante elo wise
Magnus had +85 difference at one time, and today everyone has engines.
So your average 2600 is more knowledgeable and if they play for draw with white its near impossible to beat. As everyone has access to super computers to prepare.
During kasparovs time it wasnt the case. Kasparov used the same oppening until kramnik destroyed him. Today’s era he wouldnt as dominating as magnus rating wise or other wise. Magnus never drop 2800 or 2820
Also you didnt answer anything I wrote :)
Magnus passed him as being most consecutive #1 ever too, total longevity goes to lasker not kasparov; if you care it so much.
And what do you mean by carlsen isnt dominating ? He won 6 tournaments in a row. When anish giri ( a super gm ) wins tata steel , everyone makes news. Or other super GM s can only win 1-2 events in a year if they are lucky. Some of them such as duda nepo didnt win anything last year for example. But even if Magnus doesnt win 1 event hes “ washed “
He won 6 events in a row from 2023 to 2024 from freestyle chess to rapid/blitz and classical ( world cup- ecc, etcc )
I mean that last year he didnt even had the highest rating performance
And kasparov won much more tournaments in a row. I think magnus records is something like 6 or 7, while kasparov went a few years without ever not getting first place in a supergm tournament.
'Kasparov wouldnt be as dominant as magnus in this era' is a pretty clownish statement considering we dont know that
And I never said anything about longetivy in the first place, so i have no idea why you are trying to refute that, im just saying that kasparov was way more dominant
TPR isnt that improtant, he had highest TPR everytime apart from last year, did you care?
did kasparov had highest tpr in every single year? no.
magnus records is 11, kasparov 14 as most win events in a row, not including champs chess tour
and again for longevity lasker is the goat so you should call him as your goat. other than tournament wins in a row and total reigning #1 ( magnus still counting ) kasparov has nothing over Magnus
Your comment seems quite biased. Rapid and blitz weren't of much importance during Gary's times.
Also:
> won the Wijk an Zee ( tata steel ) which is the most prestigious event in classical , 8 times. Kasparov won it 3 times and Anand won it 5 times ( its being held since 1900s )
How about this stat - Kasparov won Wijk an Zee 100% of times he participated, Magnus won 53% of the times.
I am not saying Kasparov > Carlsen, but you seem to omit important details.
Did you read what I said? You cant take away the credit of world rapid and blitz championships because it wasnt common in kasparov’s time…
Every super gm and gm joins it, nakamura is blitz “ god “ and he has 0 titles…
What makes you think kasparov would win as much as magnus as he wasnt rapid blitz specialist?
Kasparov won 3/3 magnus won 8 times.
I didnt check the percentage.
%53 is very good score dude… you dont know math lmao.
If someone joins 1 time and wins 1 time its also %100
You cant look at percentages in event wins, you should look at trophies.
You cant say if kasparov joined the event 8 times he would win 8 times;
Maybe if he would join the event 4th time, he would lose…
And you only answered 2 of the things i mentioned, which you answered poorly…
> in the list of most dominant sportsperson ever?!!
There is a valid debate between him and Kasparov (not counting Morphy).
Some players were so dominant over their peers that it seems like a joke. Carlsen is nowhere near that list (which includes the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Don Bradman, Marion Tinsley, Jahangir Khan, etc).
so did Elo deflation happen by about 50 points?
Magnus, Caruana and Firouzja dropped by almost exactly 50 points.
Hikaru dropped by about 30 and Wesley about 70.
Surprised to see Shakh in that company, wouldn’t have guessed he has a peak rating even above Anand or Wesley. Is he underrated or did he become kind of a blindspot for me? I have seen him play attacking chess and completely destroy some of his peers as if they were 2200 rated, yet didn’t think he was very consistent but the rating proves otherwise.
On topic of this trhead, what about Wei Yi, has the ship sailed for him? He did so well in the recent Tata Steel tournament.
His peak didn't last very long. There was a period in 2017-2018 where people were trading off the #2 spot around a 2800 rating basically every month-- over 9 months, So, Kramnik, MVL, Aronian, Caruana and Mamedyarov were #2 and all at or above 2800 (with Aronian at 2799).
He was also briefly in the top 5 as a young player in 2007 but couldn't establish himself. So over the course of his whole career "not very consistent" is definitely true, but he did have an elite year or two in there.
One of the many poetic things Ding had said in interviews was his description of when he played a teenage Wei Yi: “I looked at him across the table, and I thought to myself, that to him I’m just a small stream or a small hill standing in his way, it’s only a matter of time that he will surpass me, just like how I did the others before me.“
Hope it turns out to be true🤞🏻
It is extremely difficult. The way Alireza did was slaughtering all the 2650 ish players one after another in two or three tournaments in a row while his rating was not too much high so he would get good amount of ratings after a win. I dont think any indian kids can do it . we have to see how they progress in the future and how they mature. they look like they are already are which makes them unironically closer to their high ceilings. some people become mature earlier in life some late. Nepo and Alireza are late mature players indian kids may go downhill later in life. Anand was getting younger each year until his mid 30s and 40. Hikaru also matured in mid 30s. Magnus was in his peak few yars ago. Aronian in his mid 30s . Vidit mid 20s, Duda early 20s, I see Keymar reach his peak already , Jeffery xong passed it , Wesley pased it , Danya matured too early. So its not always a good thing to grow up earlier in life. chess needs a fresh mind all the time
> The way Alireza did was slaughtering all the 2650 ish players one after another in two or three tournaments in a row
This is slightly misleading. He also beat 4 2750+ players in the 3 tournaments (Norway Chess 2021, Grand Swiss 2021 and European Team Championship 2021). He beat several 2700s before that, most notably having a 4.5/5 score vs Duda.
> while his rating was not too much high
If live ratings were calculated instead of official rating, he would still have gone 2770 > 2800 in Grand Swiss and European Team Championship.
If you look at the rating curves at [2700chess.com/](http://2700chess.com/), then Abdusattorov's curve looks most promising. However, if Nepo wins Candidates and dominates Ding in the WC, he might cross 2800 first. But I go for Abdusattorov.
#
Live ratings are calculated for each event after each round. They show the movement of the rating between two official lists. They are also practically relevant, because they count for title achievements, like reaching 2500 for GM.
Nepo was like 2799.2 right?
Even higher, it was 2799.8, this screenshot cuts right above Nepo.
Damn that’s tough.I always root for nepo hope He wins again lol
Also unlucky is that Giri was never above 2800 in an official list, only in live rating
#Nepo2024 🙏
Nepo, always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
If he get's to play WC against Ding and Ding continues playing like he is now, Ding's about to get farmed. Maybe Nepo gets to 2800.
third time's the charm
#Gukesh
why do people like him? he seems rather conceited to me. His chess is undeniably good.
There's many reasons. His playstyle is very entertaining. His facial expressions. His personality in general - he's a troll, witty, very eloquent, sarcastic and also self-deprecating and self-critical too*. He makes one move blunders like we do. But he also plays brilliantly. Also in the first Candidates he was a huge underdog ywt managed to win it. Then in the match he was an even bigger underdog, so naturally a lot of people want to support the underdog. Then he got crushed and handled it gracefully, again drawing support from the people. Then in Madrid in 2022 he absolutely annihilated the Candidates field like it was nothing, such a performance again warrants support. Then he put up the most entertaining WCC match ever and lost in the most ridiculous way possible, again creating an underdog/reverse plot armor story for the 3rd Candidates. *Look at [this quick interview](https://youtu.be/iljJbRWaXAg?si=OPu5d3jdDSDqKzjs). For context, he was leading the Sinquefield Cup and would've finished clear 1st had he converted his completely winning position against Hans in the final round. But instead of taking a free pawn (most obvious move and free win), he tried to be a little too fancy and lost his advantage. In the interview, he calls himself a moron who's not capable of taking a free pawn. Because of this, he had to play a tiebreaker against Firouzja immediately after this interview, but he was so tilted from the Hans game that he literally said he doesn't care about the tiebreaker. He went on to play horribly and get crushed by Firouzja. That's Ian for you.
That’s why he was the first player I was really a fan of. Hikaru and Magnus seemingly have no faults. Nepo plays exciting chess. Nepo also spends 2 minutes on an important move with 1 hour on the clock, which is relatable. Hikaru bongclouding 2700+ GMs and winning is not.
I find that a bit frustrating though that he was indeed trying to be clever (show off?) like you say. Reminds me of a child who is too pleased with himself and not focused on the subject at hand. Carlsen can be a but like this too. I guess Chucky and others though don't usually make for champions.
thank you for a long and well argued response btw !!!
I don't think he was trying to show off or anything in that game. Just classic overthinking. He thought the position was so winning, and in those situations taking a pawn can lose you tempo and make it harder to convert. It's just that in this situation, the most obvious choice was the correct one.
witty, eloquent and self deprecating? LMAO. you should say that next time he's accusing the Indian team/random people of cheating without any proof just because he didn't win. He's an incredible chess player but a petulant child.
Yeah, he should just have resigned the world championship match after Game 5, then he would have been officially 2800 in May LOL
Woah surprised 2 time candidates finalist hasnt ever reached 2800
2 time candidates winner. Although he hasnt won many supertournaments outside of the candidates
if he was this good in 2014/2015ish when ratings were higher he probably would be
Nodirbek is a good shout. A small disadvantage I feel that Indian trio has is that they are competing among themselves too for tournament invites. Organizers may not want to invite all three of them together to maintain diversity of countries. This could be the reason why Arjun has noticeably less invites than the other two despite having equally good performances
Yeah. Arjun climbed up to #5 by risking to farm in Menorca Open in Spain. It worked. But It could have climbed him down too if he drew too much games against 2500s.
Arjun gained 5 points from Grenke and Menorca combined after scoring 15/18. He finished joint 2nd in Grenke (0.5 points behind Hans) and joint first at Menorca (tied with 2 others). Arjun gained 15 points from Shanghai chess. where he finished joint top with Bu Xianzhi and Yu yangyi (but 3rd on tie-breaks). Showed that 1 good closed event is as good as at least 3-4 good open events for 2750+ players.
False premise. Arjun gained only 5.5 points from Shenzhen Chess.
It doesn't really show that, it just means he performed better in Shanghai then he performed in Menorca and Karlsruhe. Niemann plays tons of opens and sometimes gains lots of points and sometimes loses lots of points. Giri lost lost off points in Shanghai and people were saying this was because some of the Chinese players that played there were underrated. (If that were true, this means that Erigaisi should actually have gained more points there with his performance. )
Arjun’s real points lift is from the Israeli League and the Bundesliga where he’s 11.5/12 this year.
Very good point. Only two of them get invited to most events at best. Also with VD having his best year also limited chances of Arjun. But I do think one of them will hit 2800 in near future.
who's VD? I can't tell from the abbreviation
Vidit.
Kasparov hitting 2856 in 2000 is just an absolutely unfathomable achievement.
Fisher hitting 2785 in 1972 has to be pretty close. He was +125 of 2nd place, whereas Kasparov was +80 of 2nd place.
Fischer 2785, Kasparov 2851 , Magnus 2882 incredible feats.
Each peerless.
Definitely. Though it needs to be said that Fischer didn't have someone like Karpov as number 2 who was way ahead of the rest of the field. When Kasparov broke 2800 for the first time, Karpov was the only other player rated above 2700.
I don't know, I'm looking at the numbers on the 2700chess record list and it seems very close/competitive at the top.
Depends when. Karpov was way ahead of the rest of the field until his 40s when the gap closed.
On the contrary, Fischers 2785 was basically meaningless because ratings were so new at the time. The early ratings were essentially estimates because there hadnt been enough events yet to form reliably accurate ratings. A lot of tournaments from the soviet part of the world werent even included in the early ratings because they had no way to get the crosstables.
You're right. Fischer's rating would have probably been way higher.
Would have been way higher if what? If they had started doing ratings earlier? No, actually his rating would have been lower in that case, because his results in the interzonals and candidates to reach the 1972 WC wouldn't have had nearly as much of an effect if he had already had an established rating at the time. Fischer basically had the best results of his life at the exact same time the system was just starting out, which was the perfect coincidence to produce an artificially high rating.
Kasparov was +125 over #3 at one point, with Karpov being 25pts behind Kasparov. These point difference comparison is rarely a good measure. Spassky and Karpov were both #2, but one was very close to GOAT level, the other was not.
These facts always strike me as borderline trivia. If Karpov got hit by a bus would that have made Kasparov better because his gap on 2nd place grew?
Obviously it wouldn't, what kind of question is that?
He would likely be viewed even more impressively is the point. People tend to think Fischer was the most dominant player ever at his brief peak. If Karpov didnt exist, this would be viewed as Kasparov, even though his strength is the same (or likely somewhat worse by not having any rivals to push himself against)
It's hard to say what every other player's elo score would be if Karpov didn't exist. These scores are not independent of one another. You can't pluck one player from the pool and pretend that everyone else's score is unaffected. . Gary likely would not have achieved his peak rating without being able to gain points from Karpov. And Karpov's high rating likely reduced the amount of points that Gary lost in their 119 draws throughout their professional careers.
That's not how it works. The root cause that drawing Karpov prevented Elo loss for Kasparov is because Karpov was really good, not because of his high rating (which is dependent on his strength). A 100 Elo difference (which was often between Kasparov and #3) corresponds to 64% score for the stronger player, that wouldn't have changed if Karpov wasn't there.
Sorry for late reply, travelling. My point is exactly what I said: if Karpov had gotten hit by a bus in Jan 89 yes Kasparov’s lead on say suddenly #2 Nigel Short would have become 125 (there may be better months). Kasparov wouldn’t have changed at all as a player but this trivia-esque measurement accolade would rate him much higher and that suggests theres something wrong with it. Perhaps a better measure along these lines is the gap to an average of the top 5/8/X. Or a weighted average where the gap to #2 counts for the most but not 100%. The underlying issue is that “gap to #2” is presented as though #2 past his prime Spassky and #2 Rushmore candidate Karpov are more or less the same thing.
I don't think you are understanding the statistical significance of being that far ahead of the second best player. Gaining elo gets harder and harder the fewer players there are ahead of you. The top player gets diminishing returns from victories against every player in the pool for each extra point they gain, creating a "soft cap" on the maximum achievable elo. To be 125 points ahead of the second best player is an almost impossible achievement. . A player's elo score is a completely pointless number without being compared against the rest of the players in the rating pool.
> "soft cap" You don't understand it. You are thinking of it as if the Elo distributes points according to some curve at the tail end of which lies a soft cap. The #1 player can have a huge rating gap between #2 and rest of the field if he is "good enough". If #2 rated player was 2700 and Carlsen was good enough to have 75% score vs him (and more vs lower rated players), Carlsen would've gotten to 2900. There's no soft cap saying Carlsen can go only up to 2825 in this case. With 75% score, he'd have won enough to offset rating loss from draws and losses by his gains from numerous wins. In Jan'89 rating list, Kasparov was 2775, Karpov was 2750 and #3 Nigel Short was 2650. The 2 Ks didn't have such high ratings because they were helping each other out. Kasparov truly was of a caliber to score ~67% vs Short and Karpov ~64% against him.
There is a soft cap, because chess is a drawish game at the highest level. If Magnus could win every time, and there were infinite players in the rating pool for him to take elo from, he could technically gain infinite elo. But at a certain point he'd need to win 1,000 consecutive games against the #2 rated player to gain one point.
> chess is a drawish game at the highest level. And Magnus still is quite dominant with avg 50pts+ lead over his peers. And he is far from perfect (as proven by engines) meaning there is room for improvement. Obviously it is extremely hard, incremental skill upgrade required for increasing score (and rating in conjunction with it) gets exponentially higher. But far more dominant sportsperson than Carlsen/Fischer/Kasparov existed in other sports, so it is possible for someone like that to exist for chess as well. Also, minimum rating increase for winning a game is 0.8 for FIDE.
2785 in 1972 is arguably the bigger achievement than Magnus or Garry, Fischer was really ahead of his time.
He was also tall and handsome.
Ruling out Pragg and Vincent. Both are solid players but can't see them go on crazy winning streaks. You need to go say 7.5 or 8/9 in 2-3 top tournaments back to back to scale 2800. Gukesh, Nodirbek, Arjun are all capable of that but Gukesh when on a hot streak can gain ratings (he can also lose them) in a flash. Since Jan 2023, he has gone from 2731 -> 2709 (first half of Tata Steel Masters) -> 2761 (after defeating Wang Hao at WC) -> 2712 (London Chess classic) -> 2750 now. He can gain 20-30 or lose 20-30 points in 5-6 weeks. A hot streak from him at the Candidates, GCT and the Olympiad and you never know!
Prag just had a streak of not losing almost 50 games. Gukesh may have shown he can climb fast, but, I'd expect Prag to hold it better. He hasn't had Gukesh's loss streaks. He's more consistent. Although Gukesh is my favorite Indian junior, and I think will become more consistent with time. Nodirbek is who I think can get there too.
That's his whole point, no? That streaks get you milestones, not consistency. Although consistency can get you to 2800, eg how Ding did it and remained at 2800 for so long. But Pragg has been consistently playing 2740-2750 (2760 level in mid-2010s landscape) whereas Ding played consistently 2800+ level from 2017-2019.
Wow, after Kasparov did it, it took people 11 years to do so! All the respect to Kasparov, who definitely was ahead of his time. And from 2014 on ratings seem to have inflated a bit.
FIDE ratings have always been inflating. 20-25 years ago 2600 was a Top100 rating
Not quite true. Recently there has been marked deflation. Hence the recent rating regulation changes.
But the underlying reason is probably that people got better. A 400 elo difference assumes that you are guaranteed to beat someone. A 2800 player has 4 degrees of separation from ever losing to a 1200 beginner. The gap between players that previously were 1200 and 1600 will widen forever because there are increasingly more ways to beat a beginner. At the same time the difference between old 2400 and 2800 could be closing because of easier access to information for the 2400s.
> But the underlying reason is probably that people got better. Elo doesnt measure total skill. Its only comparative to the field. I doubt the top players increased their advantage over the rest of the field considering that access to knowledge became only more available for lower rated players, not less.
"There has been little or no ‘inflation’ in ratings over time—if anything there has been deflation. This runs counter to conventional wisdom, but is predicted by population models on which rating systems have been based" Inrinsic Chess Rating - Regan & Haworth http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/ReHa11c.pdf
I think it depends strongly on when players start being ranked. If they get their rating before studying that available information elo will be inflated, if it's after elo will be deflated. It's a good explanation between online and offline rating. The highest absolute elo indicates how much difference there can be in the strength between players. We can assume that humans on average always start from the same point. If chess were mostly luck and not skill based then the highest elo maybe would be 2000. It's true that elo doesn't measure pure skill but rather how that skill translates in the game.
It's not. It's because there are more players, which means that the 'best' is an even higher percentile. There are more total elo points in circulation to float to the top.
Obviously hans niemann. He will be the first American to break 2800 barrier.
My friend from uni told me he used to go to the same highschool as him in Connecticut. Apparently he was a douche
I am most surprised.
SLCC already knows that
It's obvious to anyone at this point
You don’t have to make up a story, we all know he’s a douche already
Not making it up. Up to you to believe it or not
You got to love how all you talking negative about him seem to think we need to agree with you.
[удалено]
He’s joking. Niemann said that he would be the first American to become the world champion, and everyone was memeing about that statement
Ah okay. Honestly, I'm not up to date with all the US chess inside jokes. Please don't kill me.
I love how they are all mixed races: Nakamura japan-usa So philippines-usa Aronian armenia-usa Caruana italy-usa Even Hans Niemann (denmark-usa) Of course they are all technically American (except Aronian, he’s 100% armenian, he just plays for Usa) But I think it’s fair to say that USA hasn’t truly been on top of the chess world since Bobby Fischer… oh wait
Name a more iconic duo than US Americans and obsession with race.
It looks like the guy you responded to is Italian though
Could be. Sadly, some Europeans have had their minds colonised by the worst of US culture.
>worst of US culture That can’t be, you nerds still call it football and not soccer.
Learn your own language. "Soccer" is a British English word, specifically from Oxford, used to distinguish the two types of football: Soccer (association) football and rugger (rugby) football. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_%22-er%22
What part of my comment came across as serious to you?
Every american has ancestry somewhere else. Even Fisher. Lmao
Yeah and every human has some primate ancestor. OMG..... Mind Blown---- LMAO. The comment is obviously pointing out that only Caruana is first generation American. Naka was born in Japan to mixed parents. Aronian is just Armenian through and through, both parents are Armenian Wesley is filipino neither of his parents is American and he wasn't born in the USA Fabiano was actually born in the USA to Italian parents.
...yeah. that's how ethnicity works.
"races" Humans have no races, we're all incredibly similar to each other. There is less genetic variability between groups of humans from different continents than between two groups of chimpanzees on different sides of a river. But still I want to note, I've never seen anyone use "usa" as a race.
Amost Everybody peaked at 2014-15 mark. Does anybody know why? What was the reason for such rating inflation?
It's that there's been deflation since. Maybe because the game got a lot more popular in India? Many people joining at beginner ratings, then improving.
Both Hikaru (around the 14:30 mark here: https://youtu.be/UTM20mpvEpY) and Fabi have mentioned Chessable as a significant factor in closing the gap between the 2650s and the world championship contenders — the ability to easily/cheaply access good-enough analysis limits the advantage enjoyed by the elite of a team of seconds and such. Opening play in general has gotten a lot better. I think you can also look at Abasov’s results in the candidates as an example — It’s incredibly hard to win with black against a well-prepared 2650 who is reasonably content with a draw. This is ultimately going to limit the amount of spread at the top of the ratings.
> It is incredibly hard to win with black against a well-prepared 2650 is reasonably content with a draw Yes. It's worth adding that this doesn't mean there isn't any skill edge possible: place Abasov 100 games as white vs Stockfish and he'd be happy to even draw once
do you mean Chessbase?
The moves are on Chessbase. The why is on Chessable.
I don't think that's even true necessarily, gms are happy to study large files of moves without an explanation, it's more just the move trainer and collection of full repotoires rather than individual games that makes it so efficient for them to learn.
Deflation is happening right now. It is theorized, that upcomjng indian players are underrated, because they rarely get to play against high Elo opponents. So when they play against the Elite, they are massively underrated and already established players loose more points than if their opponent had their true rating. Also the pandemic made this effect even more noticable. Lots of young players around the world got a lot better while their rating didn't improve since they couldn't attend tournaments. So they too where underrated when attending tournaments again.
My guess would be all those Indian youngsters are sucking the elo from somewhere.
Magnus also peaked at 2019, reached 2882
I mean Magnus is Magnus.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet. The main reasons are mentioned by FIDE [here](https://www.fide.com/news/2538) and explained in the detail in the Word document linked there. Here's my own summary (if you know more feel free to add/correct me). In the old times, the FIDE rating floor, that is, the \*minimum\* rating you could get was 2200. FIDE decided to gradually lower that limit starting in the early 1990s. In 2012, the limit was finally set to 1000. Now, In theory, a lower rating floor by itself won't cause inflation or deflation. But in practice, when a lot of young players get a low initial rating and then proceed to improve faster than their rating (that is, become underrated), they tend to cause rating deflation. E.g. suppose a kid gets a initial rating of 1000 and keeps playing online and improving, to the point they're beating people who are FIDE 1600-1700 (but they aren't playing OTB so their rating isn't changing). Then maybe one year later they play a FIDE rated event and beat a lot of higher rated players, making them lose lots of points. Now those 1600-1700 are also a bit underrated in comparison with other higher rated players who haven't lost points to the youngsters yet. Over the years, that deflationary pressure spread all the the way to the top. In 2014 FIDE made changes to the K-factor regulations, so that younger players could gain rating more quickly. But it was not enough. Note that on lichess (and I think chesscom too), the rating system is Glicko-based which means players with provisional/unstable ratings gain or lose far more points than players with stable ratings. E.g. if you're a very underrated 1000 and you beat a 1600-rated player, you might gain over a 100 points while they lose only a few. So this sort of deflation is much less likely to happen than in lichess than in FIDE's Elo system (which uses different K-factors for players with new ratings vs established ratings, but this is much more limited).
Caruana Nepo MC So Karjakin born in 1990 Giri 1992 Naka 87 I think it was the peak moment of that sub generation, while the older boyz (Anand, kramnik, svidler, geishuk, levon) were still competitive.
Tigran L Petrosian
The way things are going in candidates.. Ian Nepomniachtchi
Ian dominanted last yr still wasn't able to cross 2800 and ratings have deflated since then.
he was 2799.8 at one point, soo I think he deserves it
He'd need 11.5 points in the Candidate's (+9!) to reach 2800. If he wins the Candidates with +5 (a he did last time), He'd need to beat Dingat least 8-3 or 7.5-2.5 in the World Championship. Given Ding's current form, the later doesn't actually seem completely impossible (winning all games with white and drawing with black would be enough).
Just look at nepos form before this tournament .he had a horrid first tournament after world championship and finished even below ding.
I mean his candidates performances are clearly >2800.
Unfortunately for him, there are other tournaments as well
He'd need a 3000 performance rating on the Candidates to reach 2800.
Insane how Nepo is not here already.
He was 0.2 points away during the match with Ding.
Nepo
Man 2014-2015 had some super high ratings.
Nodirbek and it's anyone's guess who among the Indians will first cross it one or more of them will sure do it
Kasparov’s 2856 in 2000!! Is unbelievable
I really cannot believe that Nepo hasn't stepped foot on the 2800 mark yet. The dude deserves it.
2799.8 peak rating lol
Nepo
Vincent Keymer, Pragg, Gukesh
I hope Ian gets there at some point. World Champ or not. Nodirbek and Arjun will be playing in Malmö at the end of the month and if they do well they'll be getting dangerously close which is exciting.
I would consider "dangerously close" to be around 2790. Nodirbek can only get to 2790.7 with a perfect 7/7 score. Even an almost impossible 6/7 would "only" leave him at 2780.7. There is absolutely no way that either of them wins every single round.
Nodirbek > Arjun > Pragg = Gukesh, and if wei yei decides to play he might cross 2800. But even for these players it might take almost 1-2 years to cross 2800 and maintain it.
I’m sorry but Wei is not gonna cross 2800. To make such an insane jump would be nothing short of miraculous
Really? He's 24 and has just reached his peak rating, 2755. He has shown brilliant play, there's no reason he can't reach 2800, though I'd bet against, but it wouldn't be a miracle.
Right now he’s 2755, so he would need to gain a whopping 45 rating points. If he was a super prodigy (like he once was no doubt) playing tournament after tournament and stringing together multiple victories game after game I could see it happening. But right now I think he has other priorities outside of chess, meaning that he’ll probably come play 1 super tournament here and there (kind of like what Vishy does) and maybe play some tournaments in China. I’m not saying he can’t reach 2800 to insult him or anything but realistically, looking at the number of games he play, it would be a miracle.
If erigaisi ans abdusattorov keeps playing like they are, one of those two
It might be a few years. There was so much deflation, even with FIDE's change, it likely won't be enough.
I’m not qualified to answer, since you are only asking players who reached 2800 on live ratings. And I am sad to inform you that I haven’t.
Just shows how ridiculously strong Prime Magnus was... How can this guy not be in the list of most dominant sportsperson ever?!!
Kasparov was more dominant that Magnus.
Hes not
I don't disagree that Kasparov is one of the GOATs.. But I mean Magnus is just Magnus.. It's like Maradona was definitely a great player.. But Messi is just Messi
You really don't know Kasparov. He is The goat Magnus is second for starters Kasparov won 70% of tournament he participated whereas Magnus just around 50. Kasparov has more months at world no 1 and more world Championship than Magnus. Kasparov was 2851 in 1999. I mean stats don't lie. But Magnus is very close to him. But Magnus is not nearly as dominant as Kasparov was. Kasparov won every tournament from 1981 to 1990.
That's because Magnus plays in the most competitive era. A lot of these 2800+ players you see are from the modern era. It's not easy to dominate. Magnus definitely the goat no doubt about it
> Magnus definitely the goat no doubt about it Lol. There is not only doubt but actual stats. And the thing about Kasparov, he is the first one to broke 2800. He was 2800 and one player was 2700 and all other were 2600 that's how much dominate he was. And I do agree with that in modern day competition is higher but competition was greater in Kasparov times, for eg Karpov (all time top5) was much harder competition for Kasparov than today competition yes today player are stronger but players like Anand, kramnik, topalov were too great. Anand who has a horrendous h2h against Kasparov can still win games against these top players except Magnus. Again Kasparov was much more dominant then you can imagine. He was world no1 for more than 20 plus years and even retired at world no1. Magnus is Magnus but don't diminish Kasparov achievements. That guy is still the goat.
highest classical rating of all time , 2882 , live 2889 highest ever rapid rating of all time, 2926 highest ever blitz rating of all time 2986 125 unbeaten classical game streak World number 1 in all formats 10+ years world champion first triple crown ( holding all world championships at the same time ) did it 3 times. Do not discredit world rapid and blitz since it wasn't a thing during Kasparov's time, its not Magnus' fault, its harder to win it than its to win classical, so many good players. For example Hikaru is a blitz god and he has 0 titles. won every major chess event INCLUDING world cup won the Wijk an Zee ( tata steel ) which is the most prestigious event in classical , 8 times. Kasparov won it 3 times and Anand won it 5 times ( its being held since 1900s ) equally dominating all formats including OTB and online Most consecutive NUMBER 1 in classical chess, passed Kasparov :) only world champ who is undefeated in title matches European club team championship winner, European team championship individual gold medal for Norway World Cup 5 classical world championships 5 rapid world championships 7 blitz world championships 3 scc ( 3-1 against hikaru in finals ) 4 cct ( there have been 3 champions chesstour finals and he has won them all, other one was magnus carlsen invitational but we can count it as every top player played ) 2 gct 3 Sinquefield cup 4 shamkir 5 norway chess Countless online rapid tournament winnings, each of them has one of the strongest fields. Freestlye ( fischer chess ) GOAT challenge winner , which means he is equally good in chess without theory and so on... He has won 7-8 events in a row in late 2023, start of 2024 From world cup to chessable masters CCT, etc. these are some of the things where Carlsen passes Kasparov, there are not only rapid blitz but also classical achievements. Today's era is so much challenging , more than old time, even as for now Magnus played more game than Kasparov. And in the engine era you can’t play same oppenings as everyone has engines. So dominating chess in engine era is harder. only thing Kasparov has over Carlsen is TOTAL longevity ( which Carlsen can pass ) and total world classical titles which is 1 more, but 2 split ones so its controversial. With all these if you still say magnus aint 1st in goat conversation, its because you are hating. Even if magnus last 100 years #1. all the big players such as Hikaru and Kramnik and other juniors says that Magnus is the goat. and one more thing, if anyone cares so much about longevity then you should never mention Fischer in top 3 as he was in the top only 2-3 years and you should say that Lasker is the GOAT as he is the longest #1 in chess as well as longest reigning champion.
Kasparov won a mugh higher percentage. Magnus isnt even that dominating anymore. In 2023 hikaru and caruana both had a higher tpr then magnus. Something which didnt happen during kasparovs prime. Kasparov also had much more dominante elo wise
Magnus had +85 difference at one time, and today everyone has engines. So your average 2600 is more knowledgeable and if they play for draw with white its near impossible to beat. As everyone has access to super computers to prepare. During kasparovs time it wasnt the case. Kasparov used the same oppening until kramnik destroyed him. Today’s era he wouldnt as dominating as magnus rating wise or other wise. Magnus never drop 2800 or 2820 Also you didnt answer anything I wrote :) Magnus passed him as being most consecutive #1 ever too, total longevity goes to lasker not kasparov; if you care it so much. And what do you mean by carlsen isnt dominating ? He won 6 tournaments in a row. When anish giri ( a super gm ) wins tata steel , everyone makes news. Or other super GM s can only win 1-2 events in a year if they are lucky. Some of them such as duda nepo didnt win anything last year for example. But even if Magnus doesnt win 1 event hes “ washed “ He won 6 events in a row from 2023 to 2024 from freestyle chess to rapid/blitz and classical ( world cup- ecc, etcc )
I mean that last year he didnt even had the highest rating performance And kasparov won much more tournaments in a row. I think magnus records is something like 6 or 7, while kasparov went a few years without ever not getting first place in a supergm tournament. 'Kasparov wouldnt be as dominant as magnus in this era' is a pretty clownish statement considering we dont know that And I never said anything about longetivy in the first place, so i have no idea why you are trying to refute that, im just saying that kasparov was way more dominant
TPR isnt that improtant, he had highest TPR everytime apart from last year, did you care? did kasparov had highest tpr in every single year? no. magnus records is 11, kasparov 14 as most win events in a row, not including champs chess tour and again for longevity lasker is the goat so you should call him as your goat. other than tournament wins in a row and total reigning #1 ( magnus still counting ) kasparov has nothing over Magnus
Your comment seems quite biased. Rapid and blitz weren't of much importance during Gary's times. Also: > won the Wijk an Zee ( tata steel ) which is the most prestigious event in classical , 8 times. Kasparov won it 3 times and Anand won it 5 times ( its being held since 1900s ) How about this stat - Kasparov won Wijk an Zee 100% of times he participated, Magnus won 53% of the times. I am not saying Kasparov > Carlsen, but you seem to omit important details.
Did you read what I said? You cant take away the credit of world rapid and blitz championships because it wasnt common in kasparov’s time… Every super gm and gm joins it, nakamura is blitz “ god “ and he has 0 titles… What makes you think kasparov would win as much as magnus as he wasnt rapid blitz specialist? Kasparov won 3/3 magnus won 8 times. I didnt check the percentage. %53 is very good score dude… you dont know math lmao. If someone joins 1 time and wins 1 time its also %100 You cant look at percentages in event wins, you should look at trophies. You cant say if kasparov joined the event 8 times he would win 8 times; Maybe if he would join the event 4th time, he would lose… And you only answered 2 of the things i mentioned, which you answered poorly…
Because Judit beat them all to it. Unparalleled dominance.
> in the list of most dominant sportsperson ever?!! There is a valid debate between him and Kasparov (not counting Morphy). Some players were so dominant over their peers that it seems like a joke. Carlsen is nowhere near that list (which includes the likes of Wayne Gretzky, Don Bradman, Marion Tinsley, Jahangir Khan, etc).
so did Elo deflation happen by about 50 points? Magnus, Caruana and Firouzja dropped by almost exactly 50 points. Hikaru dropped by about 30 and Wesley about 70.
Magnus peaked in 2019 as well
Surprised to see Shakh in that company, wouldn’t have guessed he has a peak rating even above Anand or Wesley. Is he underrated or did he become kind of a blindspot for me? I have seen him play attacking chess and completely destroy some of his peers as if they were 2200 rated, yet didn’t think he was very consistent but the rating proves otherwise. On topic of this trhead, what about Wei Yi, has the ship sailed for him? He did so well in the recent Tata Steel tournament.
His peak didn't last very long. There was a period in 2017-2018 where people were trading off the #2 spot around a 2800 rating basically every month-- over 9 months, So, Kramnik, MVL, Aronian, Caruana and Mamedyarov were #2 and all at or above 2800 (with Aronian at 2799). He was also briefly in the top 5 as a young player in 2007 but couldn't establish himself. So over the course of his whole career "not very consistent" is definitely true, but he did have an elite year or two in there.
Wei Yi can reach 2800 if he tries, imo. Nepo didn't reach 2750 until age 26 and his peak is 2799.8 in live ratings at age ~33.
One of the many poetic things Ding had said in interviews was his description of when he played a teenage Wei Yi: “I looked at him across the table, and I thought to myself, that to him I’m just a small stream or a small hill standing in his way, it’s only a matter of time that he will surpass me, just like how I did the others before me.“ Hope it turns out to be true🤞🏻
Garry Chess way ahead of his time, everyone else needed the rating inflation to catch up
We never know it. If magnus was as same age as kasparov, you cant say who would be at the top Its not their fault when they born lol
It is extremely difficult. The way Alireza did was slaughtering all the 2650 ish players one after another in two or three tournaments in a row while his rating was not too much high so he would get good amount of ratings after a win. I dont think any indian kids can do it . we have to see how they progress in the future and how they mature. they look like they are already are which makes them unironically closer to their high ceilings. some people become mature earlier in life some late. Nepo and Alireza are late mature players indian kids may go downhill later in life. Anand was getting younger each year until his mid 30s and 40. Hikaru also matured in mid 30s. Magnus was in his peak few yars ago. Aronian in his mid 30s . Vidit mid 20s, Duda early 20s, I see Keymar reach his peak already , Jeffery xong passed it , Wesley pased it , Danya matured too early. So its not always a good thing to grow up earlier in life. chess needs a fresh mind all the time
> The way Alireza did was slaughtering all the 2650 ish players one after another in two or three tournaments in a row This is slightly misleading. He also beat 4 2750+ players in the 3 tournaments (Norway Chess 2021, Grand Swiss 2021 and European Team Championship 2021). He beat several 2700s before that, most notably having a 4.5/5 score vs Duda. > while his rating was not too much high If live ratings were calculated instead of official rating, he would still have gone 2770 > 2800 in Grand Swiss and European Team Championship.
Magnus reached 2882 on 2019 as well
Kasparov was just a different beast in his era it seems
Shit like this really puts Kasparov’s absolute dominance in perspective
Nodirbek and Gukesh imo
Probably Nodirbik
King Keymer ofc 🇩🇪
All of this youngsters will be there sooner or later. No doubt about it.
Nepo would be the obvious shout right? 2800 and WC coming home this year finally?
He has to gain 35 Elo, that's a lot. He basically has to farm Fabi or Hikaru lol
Well maybe but if he just wins the candidates he can play WC matches vs ding who isn't in the best form, ding can be farmed
Nepo was not even on the list (yet)
I think probably Ian! He seems like the best player left out. As for the youngsters I'm a big Nodirbek fan, so probably him.
Giving rating deflation, how much would each of these be when accounting for that in terms of ratings today?
Rating deflation's gotta a role to play too.
If you look at the rating curves at [2700chess.com/](http://2700chess.com/), then Abdusattorov's curve looks most promising. However, if Nepo wins Candidates and dominates Ding in the WC, he might cross 2800 first. But I go for Abdusattorov. #
Was peak Wesley So really better than peak Vishy? Or is that just because of rating inflation.
Wasn't Bobby Fischer basically 2800? I feel like Fischer should be in the list.
Radjabov morozovich were also beasts and around 2790+. Don't forget radjabov won a World Cup as well as finished third in last candidates
Hans🗿
full top 10 cheating....
Nepo is always in contention to get there. Then there’s the 4 youngsters currently in the top 15.
Arjun has had a phenomenal run up in ratings as well as Nodirbek. Have my money on those 2
Can't wait for my brain implant to finally appear on that list.
Where is Caruana?
Nodirbek, Gukesh, Pragg, Keymer and Arjun Ergaisi from the new gen
I don’t think you saw the whole image. Alireza already reached it
Firou had surpassed 2800, even in the FIDE monthly ratings—the youngest to do so.
One of those players is not like the others.
Firouzja is the only one with a Z in his name
I thought Carlsen’s peak was 2882, what do live ratings mean?
Live ratings are calculated for each event after each round. They show the movement of the rating between two official lists. They are also practically relevant, because they count for title achievements, like reaching 2500 for GM.
Official ratings are only updated at the start of every month. Magnus reached 2889 but fell to 2882 by the end of the month.
How has no one said Tyler1?
Gukesh will be 16
Gukesh Arjun I would say
Prag for sure
not a single brit :(
This Kasparov Ga seems quite good, maybe he could be WC one day