Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

July 2011 FIDE Rating List

  • SonofPearl
  • on 7/1/11, 9:00 AM.

fide logo big.gifMagnus Carlsen has regained the #1 position at the top of the official FIDE world chess rankings. Carlsen gained six rating points during the Bazna Kings tournament, pushing world champion Vishy Anand back down to #2.

Carlsen tweeted that he was, "very happy to be back at the top on the World Chess Ranking".

Levon Aronian holds onto his #3 spot, while at #4 Sergey Karjakin is now the top rated Russian ahead of Vladimir Kramnik who drops one place to #5.

Next at #6 is Vassily Ivanchuk followed by Ruslan Ponomariov who climbs four places to #7 thanks to his strong showing at the Ukrainian Championships.

The top 10 is rounded out by Veselin Topalov at #8, Hikaru Nakamura at #9 and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov at #10.

Hikaru Nakamura bitterly tweeted, "Congratulations to everyone at the USCF for being so inept and making sure my match with Ponomariov didn't get rated for the July Fide list" [UPDATE:Nakamura has deleted this tweet! A change of heart perhaps?]

The women's top 10 is largely unchanged, with Judit Polgar at #1, Humpy Koneru at #2, and Hou Yifan still at #3 despite shedding some rating points. Viktorija Climyte enters the top 10 at #9 thanks to her victory in the European Women's Chess Championship.

On the Junior list, Vietnamese talent Le Quang Liem claims the #1 spot from Fabiano Caruana thanks in part to an excellent showing at the Capablanca Memorial. Anish Giri breaks the 2700 barrier at #3.

Le Quang Liem tops the Junior ranking list

Le Quang Liem1.jpg

 

The top 100 ranking list:


 Name Nat Rating
1  Carlsen, Magnus  NOR 2821
2  Anand, Viswanathan  IND 2817
3  Aronian, Levon  ARM 2805
4  Karjakin, Sergey  RUS 2788
5  Kramnik, Vladimir  RUS 2781
6  Ivanchuk, Vassily  UKR 2768
7  Ponomariov, Ruslan  UKR 2768
8  Topalov, Veselin  BUL 2768
9  Nakamura, Hikaru  USA 2766
10  Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar  AZE 2765
11  Gashimov, Vugar  AZE 2760
12  Gelfand, Boris  ISR 2746
13  Grischuk, Alexander  RUS 2746
14  Radjabov, Teimour  AZE 2744
15  Kamsky, Gata  USA 2741
16  Svidler, Peter  RUS 2739
17  Jakovenko, Dmitry  RUS 2736
18  Vitiugov, Nikita  RUS 2733
19  Almasi, Zoltan  HUN 2726
20  Vallejo Pons, Francisco  ESP 2724
21  Navara, David  CZE 2722
22  Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime  FRA 2722
23  Dominguez Perez, Leinier  CUB 2719
24  Wang, Hao  CHN 2718
25  Leko, Peter  HUN 2717
26  Moiseenko, Alexander  UKR 2715
27  Le, Quang Liem  VIE 2715
28  Adams, Michael  ENG 2715
29  Shirov, Alexei  ESP 2714
30  Jobava, Baadur  GEO 2713
31  Dreev, Aleksey  RUS 2711
32  Caruana, Fabiano  ITA 2711
33  Nepomniachtchi, Ian  RUS 2711
34  Bacrot, Etienne  FRA 2710
35  Wang, Yue  CHN 2709
36  Tomashevsky, Evgeny  RUS 2707
37  Naiditsch, Arkadij  GER 2706
38  Efimenko, Zahar  UKR 2706
39  Malakhov, Vladimir  RUS 2706
40  Giri, Anish  NED 2701
41  Sutovsky, Emil  ISR 2700
42  Movsesian, Sergei  ARM 2700
43  Polgar, Judit  HUN 2699
44  Fressinet, Laurent  FRA 2698
45  Eljanov, Pavel  UKR 2697
46  Berkes, Ferenc  HUN 2696
47  Andreikin, Dmitry  RUS 2696
48  Morozevich, Alexander  RUS 2694
49  Zhigalko, Sergei  BLR 2689
50  Riazantsev, Alexander  RUS 2688
51  Short, Nigel D  ENG 2687
52  Motylev, Alexander  RUS 2685
53  Rublevsky, Sergei  RUS 2684
54  Van Wely, Loek  NED 2683
55  Wojtaszek, Radoslaw  POL 2683
56  Volokitin, Andrei  UKR 2683
57  Areshchenko, Alexander  UKR 2682
58  Potkin, Vladimir  RUS 2682
59  Sasikiran, Krishnan  IND 2681
60  Laznicka, Viktor  CZE 2681
61  Nielsen, Peter Heine  DEN 2681
62  Grachev, Boris  RUS 2680
63  Inarkiev, Ernesto  RUS 2679
64  Kobalia, Mikhail  RUS 2679
65  Mamedov, Rauf  AZE 2679
66  Bologan, Viktor  MDA 2678
67  Smirin, Ilia  ISR 2676
68  Bu, Xiangzhi  CHN 2675
69  Onischuk, Alexander  USA 2675
70  Bruzon Batista, Lazaro  CUB 2673
71  Yu, Yangyi  CHN 2672
72  Sokolov, Ivan  NED 2672
73  Korobov, Anton  UKR 2671
74  McShane, Luke J  ENG 2671
75  Gharamian, Tigran  FRA 2670
76  Harikrishna, P.  IND 2669
77  Li, Chao b  CHN 2669
78  Roiz, Michael  ISR 2669
79  Kasimdzhanov, Rustam  UZB 2669
80  Cheparinov, Ivan  BUL 2669
81  Akopian, Vladimir  ARM 2667
82  Feller, Sebastien  FRA 2666
83  Timofeev, Artyom  RUS 2665
84  Sargissian, Gabriel  ARM 2663
85  Ni, Hua  CHN 2662
86  Fridman, Daniel  GER 2659
87  Alekseev, Evgeny  RUS 2659
88  Zvjaginsev, Vadim  RUS 2659
89  So, Wesley  PHI 2658
90  Meier, Georg  GER 2656
91  Khismatullin, Denis  RUS 2656
92  Sandipan, Chanda  IND 2656
93  Georgiev, Kiril  BUL 2654
94  Ding, Liren  CHN 2654
95  Markus, Robert  SRB 2652
96  Kryvoruchko, Yuriy  UKR 2652
97  Ragger, Markus  AUT 2651
98  Milov, Vadim  SUI 2651
99  Lupulescu, Constantin  ROU 2650
100  Khairullin, Ildar  RUS 2649

 

The top 100 women ranking list:


 Name Nat Rating
1  Polgar, Judit  HUN 2699
2  Koneru, Humpy  IND 2614
3  Hou, Yifan  CHN 2575
4  Kosintseva, Nadezhda  RUS 2560
5  Kosintseva, Tatiana  RUS 2557
6  Muzychuk, Anna  SLO 2538
7  Dzagnidze, Nana  GEO 2537
8  Lahno, Kateryna  UKR 2536
9  Cmilyte, Viktorija  LTU 2528
10  Stefanova, Antoaneta  BUL 2524
11  Zatonskih, Anna  USA 2522
12  Danielian, Elina  ARM 2521
13  Ju, Wenjun  CHN 2515
14  Harika, Dronavalli  IND 2513
15  Sebag, Marie  FRA 2510
16  Chiburdanidze, Maia  GEO 2500
17  Kosteniuk, Alexandra  RUS 2497
18  Galliamova, Alisa  RUS 2492
19  Socko, Monika  POL 2490
20  Krush, Irina  USA 2487
21  Khotenashvili, Bela  GEO 2487
22  Gunina, Valentina  RUS 2487
23  Zhu, Chen  QAT 2485
24  Ruan, Lufei  CHN 2479
25  Xu, Yuhua  CHN 2477
26  Cramling, Pia  SWE 2472
27  Dembo, Yelena  GRE 2471
28  Skripchenko, Almira  FRA 2470
29  Zhao, Xue  CHN 2470
30  Javakhishvili, Lela  GEO 2469
31  Muzychuk, Mariya  UKR 2469
32  Arakhamia-Grant, Ketevan  SCO 2464
33  Mkrtchian, Lilit  ARM 2463
34  Paehtz, Elisabeth  GER 2463
35  Hoang, Thanh Trang  HUN 2459
36  Ushenina, Anna  UKR 2459
37  Shen, Yang  CHN 2459
38  Munguntuul, Batkhuyag  MGL 2457
39  Gaponenko, Inna  UKR 2442
40  Pogonina, Natalija  RUS 2442
41  Khurtsidze, Nino  GEO 2440
42  Melia, Salome  GEO 2437
43  Rajlich, Iweta  POL 2436
44  Atalik, Ekaterina  TUR 2436
45  Moser, Eva  AUT 2432
46  Bodnaruk, Anastasia  RUS 2431
47  Matnadze, Ana  GEO 2428
48  Foisor, Cristina-Adela  ROU 2427
49  Kovalevskaya, Ekaterina  RUS 2427
50  Khukhashvili, Sopiko  GEO 2426
51  Repkova, Eva  SVK 2423
52  Peptan, Corina-Isabela  ROU 2421
53  Ovod, Evgenija  RUS 2420
54  Tania, Sachdev  IND 2419
55  Li, Ruofan  SIN 2419
56  Zaiatz, Elena  RUS 2419
57  Houska, Jovanka  ENG 2418
58  Vasilevich, Tatjana  UKR 2417
59  Paikidze, Nazi  GEO 2416
60  Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman  IND 2415
61  Turova, Irina  RUS 2413
62  Zhukova, Natalia  UKR 2412
63  Zawadzka, Jolanta  POL 2405
64  Huang, Qian  CHN 2404
65  Romanko, Marina  RUS 2402
66  Wang, Yu A.  CHN 2399
67  Savina, Anastasia  RUS 2398
68  Michna, Marta  GER 2397
69  Tan, Zhongyi  CHN 2396
70  Madl, Ildiko  HUN 2396
71  Alexandrova, Olga  ESP 2393
72  Galojan, Lilit  ARM 2389
73  Zhang, Xiaowen  CHN 2389
74  Matveeva, Svetlana  RUS 2388
75  Majdan-Gajewska, Joanna  POL 2386
76  Zdebskaja, Natalia  UKR 2384
77  Batsiashvili, Nino  GEO 2381
78  Zozulia, Anna  BEL 2381
79  Fierro Baquero, Martha L.  ECU 2381
80  Tsereteli, Tamar  GEO 2379
81  Bojkovic, Natasa  SRB 2378
82  Cori T., Deysi  PER 2376
83  Gara, Ticia  HUN 2375
84  Kononenko, Tatiana  UKR 2375
85  Stockova, Zuzana  SVK 2374
86  Shadrina, Tatiana  RUS 2373
87  Peng, Zhaoqin  NED 2372
88  Girya, Olga  RUS 2371
89  Gara, Anita  HUN 2369
90  Guo, Qi  CHN 2368
91  Vasilevich, Irina  RUS 2367
92  Vajda, Szidonia  HUN 2367
93  Sukandar, Irine Kharisma  INA 2366
94  Lomineishvili, Maia  GEO 2366
95  Purtseladze, Maka  GEO 2364
96  Foisor, Sabina-Francesca  USA 2363
97  Melamed, Tetyana  GER 2362
98  Gaprindashvili, Nona  GEO 2360
99  Kashlinskaya, Alina  RUS 2360
100  Pham, Le Thao Nguyen  VIE 2359

 

The top 20 juniors ranking list:


 Name Nat Rating B-Year
1  Le, Quang Liem  VIE 2715 1991
2  Caruana, Fabiano  ITA 2711 1992
3  Giri, Anish  NED 2701 1994
4  Yu, Yangyi  CHN 2672 1994
5  Feller, Sebastien  FRA 2666 1991
6  So, Wesley  PHI 2658 1993
7  Ding, Liren  CHN 2654 1992
8  Negi, Parimarjan  IND 2642 1993
9  Matlakov, Maxim  RUS 2632 1991
10  Sjugirov, Sanan  RUS 2629 1993
11  Salgado Lopez, Ivan  ESP 2626 1991
12  Safarli, Eltaj  AZE 2622 1992
13  Kovalyov, Anton  ARG 2612 1992
14  Hess, Robert L  USA 2609 1991
15  Zherebukh, Yaroslav  UKR 2590 1993
16  Nyzhnyk, Illya  UKR 2589 1996
17  Shimanov, Aleksandr  RUS 2586 1992
18  Nabaty, Tamir  ISR 2584 1991
19  Hou, Yifan  CHN 2575 1994
20  Cordova, Emilio  PER 2567 1991

9304 reads 82 comments
2 votes
more Misc

Comments


  • 19 months ago

    firewoods

    this is is old beause now carleso is 2861 and beat the world record

  • 2 years ago

    Elroch

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 3 years ago

    thaihp

    Vietnamese talent will depose Carlsen soon {#emotions_dlg.cool}

  • 3 years ago

    Tobbie

    gooo carlsen... go liem .... d best of d best in chess

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    btw there was an elderly player at the club i played at who had a stroke. the club organizers wrote to the uscf about it and they dropped his floor a few hundred points; he got to have an accurate rating and continue playing for years.

  • 3 years ago

    fish_food

    "I am curious what specifically the problem is/was with sandbagging, and how the rating floors were intended to help avoid it? "

    This link may be useful: http://www.timmybx.com/uscf-president-agrees-with-timmy-on-sandbagging/

    But anyway, I guess everything is relative to what you consider to be a lot of money....

    Consider the upcoming US Open. Class prizes are $2500 which I happen to think is a lot of money, and for such prizes you only compete against players in the same rating class as you. So if there is no rating floor on ratings, and say you are master strength and currently have a master rating, then what you can theoretically do is play in a few cheap weekend tournaments, lose every game, which will artificially lower your rating far below your real strength to say -- class B...Then you can enter a national tournament -- such as the US open -- and unfairly compete against B players for these large class prizes, when in fact you are really much stronger than class B. 

    Unethical, yes, but such things are an unfortunate side effect of what happens when large amounts of cash find their way into a sport, in this case, chess. On the other hand, our top players certainly need/deserve large cash prizes, so what to do?

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    I imagine the sandbagging involved people purposely making their ratings much lower than they should be (by throwing games) so that they could enter a big-money tournament in a rating class that is far below their actual rating, and then stand a very good chance of winning. The person would end up competing for a large money prize against players that are all much weaker players.

    However, if this was the main issue, there is an obvious solution that doesn't defeat the entire purpose of ratings. Simply keep track of the highest rating a player has ever achieved, and use that for determining elibility of tournament sections, prizes, etc, not the current rating. A player who was formerly 2250 wouldn't be eligible for a big money U2000 prize, so there is no point in him purposely losing games so that he can get his rating low enough to dominate that section.

    Does anybody see any problems with this idea? The only issue I see is that the small number of people who are much weaker than they used to be would be forced to play against players much stronger than they are, but that seems much less of a problem than those that result from abusing the rating system. And maybe there are other alternatives like let them play in a section below their highest ever and let them get the rating points, but keep them ineligible for prizes regardless of their performance.

  • 3 years ago

    _valentin_

    It does seem odd to co-opt the use of ratings (originally designed for relative comparison of player strengths) for encouraging participation by an audience of elderly players (through the addition of rating floors).  

    It's easy to see, as David mentioned, how this has inflationary effect and in a way defeats the purpose of the original design, though for most players of the same generation it still keeps the comparison relatively accurate.  Players across generations become incomparable then, at least not without an adjustment for inflation (as we tend to do with currencies)...

    I am curious what specifically the problem is/was with sandbagging, and how the rating floors were intended to help avoid it?  fish_food, would you briefly clarify for those us who are not in the know.  Thanks!

  • 3 years ago

    fish_food

    USCF rating floors were created to prevent sandbagging...for those old enough to actually witness the rise of obscene levels of cash prizes in the big open tournaments (world open,etc) we actually remember them being implemented for that reason.

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    im dpruess: Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. Ratings floors still seem like an obviously bad solution though to the problem they were intended to solve, since the whole point of a ratings system is to predict the expected results of games between players and give an estimate of a player's strength relative to other players. Trying to solve an unrelated problem by compromising the integrity of ratings seems a poor choice. One can see the absurdity of the policy by considering a 2400+ player who has a stroke that impairs his chess ability so that he plays at the level of a 1500 player. If he continues to play chess, which he might if he still loves the game, he will wreak havoc on the ratings of everybody he plays and loses to that is much lower rated. In effect, that person would become a "ratings pump" that lower rated players could use to increase their rating again and again, and those people will then have over-inflated ratings that would cause other people who beat them to gain more ratings points from the win than they should.

    As Glickman says in the article, this makes the ratings system serve a purpose it wasn't designed to do. His suggestion of a good system of titles for achievement seems to make more sense (so people won't use ratings as a mark of achievement and care so much about losing rating points). He also remarks that the problem of scholastic players whose rating is wildly inaccurate due to massive leaps in improvement is solved by the Glickman-2 system, which he says has been introduced in Australia with great success (young players there that are rapidly improving are tracked accurately).

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    sapientdust, i believe the (or one) rationale behind the uscf ratings floors was this: as players got older, their abilities declined a bit. therefore, they would not play in tournaments, because they did not want to lose lots of rating points to younger players. but a theoretical goal of the uscf is to increase tournament participation, so ratings floors allow: the young tigers to gain points off the old guys, and for the old guys to keep their ratings! win-win!

    (btw, that policy has an obviously inflationary effect, since it creates rating points out of nowhere; however the pool as a whole was deflated bc of the influx of scholastic players who made up a greater and greater percentage of the uscf rated population. they would often earn ratings of e.g. 500, then take classes, improve a thousand points, and then take those points from the rest of the rating pool).

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    fish_food: interesting article. Thanks!

    The "rating floor" that Glickman is talking about in that article though is different than the minimum performance rating required to get a FIDE rating (maybe that's not supposed to be called a 'ratings floor', but that's what Edwards called it too). Glickman is talking about the ratings floors in USCF below which your rating cannot drop after you have already achieved a rating, no matter how many games you lose. That seems obviously like a bad idea, as it defeats the purpose of having a rating if they no longer accurately represent how well one is expected to perform against other players.

  • 3 years ago

    fish_food

    @spatientdust-- the rating floor mechanism would have to be verified by computer simulation also.

    Perhaps this link http://www.glicko.net/ratings/cl-article.pdf will be of interest...the rating floor, coupled with loss of established stronger players in the USCF, at one time resulted in deflation rather than inflation in American chess.

    You might note the FIDE is using an older rating formula somewhat different than the USCF formula -- which has undergone considerable tweaking.

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    fish_food, you're right, it would definitely not be bell-shaped. Thanks for the correction.

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    im dpruess: Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

    I just noticed an update to the original page I linked to earlier that I hadn't noticed previously:http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/update.html

    He discusses some explanations people have put forward, including those of fish_food and im dpruess, and he concludes that the rating floor explanation seems the best one at this point, but he wasn't able to get a response from FIDE when he tried to get more information.

  • 3 years ago

    fish_food

     

    @sapatientdust ---"I don't see why that would be expected, rather than a bell-shaped curve with most performing about average and those performing better being balanced by those performing worse."

    USCF published the curve for its membership some years ago -- before the inflation I believe-- and the curve was highly skewed towards the low end, and so not really resembling a Bell curve, with most players having really low ratings.

    That is kind of what I would expect...players who are not that strong try out a rated tournament to see how they fare, must get crushed, and lose interest, and never improve.

    Regarding my weak pool and strong pool idea. One could write a computer simulation and simply vary the average size and strength of the rating pools, vary the influx and out flux of new players into the pools, and then let them interact and see if there was any observed inflation...Since the ELO rating gives the statistical probability of a win, draw, or loss, this is a simple problem for a computer (but impossible to do on paper from first principles).

    But you are quite correct, my explanation could be wrong, it is just something I have postulated based on my empirical observations.

  • 3 years ago

    IM dpruess

    sapientdust, imagine you need a performance of 2200 over at least 10 games to get a fide rating. a player with a "true strength" of 2150 will not earn a fide rating one year; then the next year he won't earn a rating; then in some rating period he will have a string of two good tournaments, and earn a fide rating of e.g. 2216.

    the same happens wherever they set the bar -- 1800, 1600, etc... a certain number of people having sub-par tournaments won't earn fide ratings.

    and even if this is only a small effect (like an average +5 bias on incoming ratings), because there are far more players rated 2200 than 2600; and far more rated 1800 than 2200, i think it could push a significant inflation up towards the top.

    (although players also improve, as per my reasoning below).

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    fish_food: another interesting idea. The suddenness of onset of the ratings rise though seems to argue against your explanation, because the number of soviets playing outside the USSR wouldn't have gone from the pre-1986 rate to a different rate overnight. What you would expect would be a slower upward trend, as some are able to play outside the USSR for the first time, with that upward trend accelerating as more and more players start playing outside the USSR and then leveling out to a flat line again when it reaches equilibrium.

    p.s. the article I linked to isn't mine. It's by Rod Edwards.

  • 3 years ago

    sapientdust

    im dpruess: very interesting explanation! That certainly sounds like it could explain the sudden onset of ratings increases if there was a change like that at the end of 1985/1986.

    What is the reason though that we would expect "among players earning their first fide rating a disproportionate number would have been having an above-average performance for themselves"? I don't see why that would be expected, rather than a bell-shaped curve with most performing about average and those performing better being balanced by those performing worse.

  • 3 years ago

    fish_food

     

    @sapientdust- Nice work.

    The cause of the inflation is open to question...

    It used to be common wisdom that (before Perestroika ), a Soviet candidate master was equal to a USCF master. Anytime there are pools of players that are isolated from each other, such rating differences can develop over time. Players in the Northwest US (Oregon, Washington, BC) used to be underrated relative to California. I can remember some NW players talking about how, after they made a trip to a California tournament, the California masters were "dirt". However, now international borders are more or less open, weaker pools can mix with the strong, and the strong can travel abroad to feed on the weak. Other countries with isolated pools can boast similar disparities. West Australia used to be cut off from East Australia, and so if I am not mistaken, East Australian players remarked on how inflated were the West Australia ratings were...now however, there is a good highway and you can DRIVE from Sydney to Perth...it was not so easy in the old days.

    You mention 1986 in your article. When was Perestroika and when did the opening of the borders take place. About the same time.

    However, in the final analysis, no statistics is required. Play over the modern games, and compare with the old games. Nothing remarkable is seen in terms of improvement, except, as I have mentioned, we now have exact 6 piece endgame databases and computer analysis of openings....

    So I have to smile when I read the claims on this thread how players are stronger now. I have seen the opposite. Players who currently rank as masters, yet who formerly would not rate quite so high.

Back to Top

Post your reply: