3000 rated player

     How long  will it take until we see a player rated 3000?  I feel it  wil happpen  in less than 10 years  from now. However',Im sure will will be acheived eventually , if so  what is the significance of it? 

It's sort of like when someone finally broke the five-minute (?) mile. Then everyone started doing it. It had been said it was impossible. I think Carlsen (assuming he stays motivated) will do it before he is 40. I think he is 24 now. Of course, he can't do it with draws lol.

Rating inflation is real, so someone will break 3100 and 3200 too eventually.

I remember or perhaps assumed that you had to be perfect to reach a 3000 rating.Grew up in a day when 2700 was considered to be elite late 60's early 70's a.k.a Bobby Fischer era.Fischer won 18 grand master games (Straight) which included victories against Candidates in the interzonal and two sweeps.Also included a ather dominating Petrosian an all time great.What was his highest rating? Carauna winning "only" 7 in a row was 2800 and number two in the World.Not to diminsh his effort but rating inflation is too much these days IMO.

Unless the best players today are better than the best in the past.

Like we see in every sport ever in the history of everything :p

I'm not so sure physical sports can be compared to this so easily.

At least two factors from normal sport disciplines do not seem to apply in chess:

1) Ever increasing amount of money/effort/professionalism being put into the sport. Compared to the height of Soviet chess management todays up and coming players often have a lot less support.

Chess in general seems to have become less mainstream, which puts less money on the table, resulting in many young talent deciding against the risk to earn a living just by playing chess.

Which is the opposite of what most sports are like today.

2) Chess is mostly unaffected by doping. Yea, I keep hearing how we know oh so much more today about the optimal diet for an athlete and modern training methods, but that does not really suffice to explain the ever greater physical performances we see.

Especially in the disciplines that are more or less pure athleticism and less technique.

So pardon me for thinking that this is more an advancement in chemistry then the athletes actually being so much more talented then those from 10 or 20 years ago.

Good points (although I don't know that Petrosian and Spassky, for example, played WC matches for as much money as Anand and Carlsen have recently, or even if super tournaments paid nearly as much).

Advancement in chemistry... great phrase, because it reminds me that perhaps sports isn't a good comparison. In chess, theory (of opening, general strategy, and endgame) has been advancing. So maybe a better comparison for chess is an academic discipline... like chemistry!

Yes, I agree, advancement in academic disciplines seems a better comparison.

Here I see that chess is indeed still evolving and chess theory does indeed get ever more voluminous, especially in regards to the opening.

However, that also means there is a lot more to learn for modern players.

But does that really make them so much stronger ?

Or has the total of chess knowledge become too vast already for a single player to absorb it all ?

If we look at how the older generation of players were doing, I always found it absolutely amazing how slowly they are getting phased out by the newer generation.

Look at Anand, for example. Biologically speaking, he *should* be WAY past his prime.

Sure, he is a great player, with an astonishing amount of years in top level chess, but he is no Kasparov or Carlsen. Indeed, him choking up against Carlsen in their first WC match reminded me a lot of back in the day when he seemed similiarily intimidated playing against Kasparov.

So he is nearly the same today as he was back then: playing at the top level, but still one step below the rare genius level player.

If the average player of today was significantly stronger than back in Kasparovs day, this should nowhere be possible for Anand - there should  be like 20-30 young guns at least who should long have surpassed Anand, because even with respect to his excellent playing ability, his age means he must be weaker now than back when he was at the peak of his strength.

And that is assuming Carlsen is of similiar playing strength as Kasparov was in his prime, which I think he is not quite.

Quoted from Kasparovs wikipedia article: "There was a time in the early 1990s when Kasparov was over 2800 and the only person in the 2700s was Anatoly Karpov." Everyone else was below 2700. That's how dominant he was.

Carlsens dominance over his peers has not been quite as big yet, and Kasparov dominated for a much longer time.

The players who were part of that golden chess generation of Kasparov weren't overrun and helpless before the newer generations. A few are left even today. Ivanchuk has started to get worse results in the last two years, but on a good day there still is noone in the world he can't beat.

Just ask Carlsen about it, he got mated on the board in a blitz game with Ivanchuk just recently, and not too long ago Chucky won a rapid tournament with the King's Gambit. Chessbase has an article about it iirc.

If chess in general had become so much stronger, there should be a whole army of Caruanas, Nakamuras, Karjakins and Sos who vastly outperform the older generation, but there aren't that many to be seen actually.

TL;DR: rating inflation is real, and I don't believe chess players today are noticably stronger than 20 years ago.

There's a player rated 4000 over at queenalice.com: http://queenalice.com/player.php?id=8242

Computer analysis has greatly helped modern players. It wouldn't surprise me at all if learning things from better engines has made Anand a better player today than he was 10 years ago even if his synapses don't fire quite as quickly as they used to.

qqwertyuiop[]]]\asdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./

Nov 2015 to 22 minutes ago . . .

oy! Hikaru is already 3500 Dubov is 3024 and naroditsky is 3060

and there is a player with 3700 rating but he is anonymous

The highest rating attained was by Magnus Carlsen: 2882. 

That's his fide rating. The highest rating ever received was 3500 on chess.com

I believe the original people were discussing FIDE ratings, not online ratings.