Did Caruana set the highest performance rating ever at the Sinquefield Cup?

I gave you all the source right at the start of the thread, a few simple searches and you would all have found the same result...

http://chess-results.com/tnr60057.aspx?art=9&lan=1&fed=PHI&turdet=YES&flag=30&snr=7

Now,perhaps Mathemagics, you can now explain to us all why you think 3098 is greater than 3183?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Regardless, that was a blitz performance.

clearly still wasting my time.

I'm happy that i have answered the OP's question. If you want any more, you can work it out for yourself, starting with 3198 minus 3098...

The OP didn't stipulate whether blitz or classical... 

It was FIDE rated, and has been ratified by FIDE 

"In top-class chess it is rare for a player to complete a tournament or match with a 100 percent score. This result was however achieved in tournaments by: Gustav Neumann at Berlin in 1865 (34/34)"

I'm wondering what Neumanns performance rating would be. Winning 34 matches must result in an increadibly high performance rating and could top Wesley So and Caruana

@43: It would be roughly 400 points higher than the average of his opponents. Should be noted that winning more games by virtue of a longer tournament wont result in a higher performance rating, but a more accurate one.

gambit-man, I've checked everything and Westley So got the performance rating of only 3027 there. Sorry to say that.

So's performance should be:

(2662+2522+2470+2403+2398+2380+2304+2222+2083)+(400*9)

/

9

=(21,444+3600)/9

=2,782.67

The performance ratings published at Chess-Results are not the ones FIDE is using, IMHO. As a matter of fact they are fairly well known to be not accurate, let alone with 100% performances. E.g. in the middle of the tournament they've shown approx. 3600 for Caruana.

Besides that, dear gambit-man, check on the concept of being helpful in general. You might find that very helpful and it will certainly not be a waste of your precious time :-)

I don't think this is true.

After six rounds Caruana scored 6/6 with a performance rating of almost 3600. Thus, 800 points higher than his own rating.

Since Neumanns score was much higher, I expect the rating gap between his performance and own rating to be even higher.

No he didn't. The 3600 performance rating is simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Performance_rating

Also, if it's against the same players it doesn't matter if you go 6-0, 12-0, 18-0, it's the same performance rating.

It is in effect an estimate of the lowest rated player who would achieve those scores. At 400 points above you're expected to win almost all games.

Average rating of his opponents in the tournament is 2342. Now first it is well known it's not really viable to calculate a performance rating out of a 100% score, still worst case scenario we can approximate it via a 99% win rate against opposition of 2342, Many chess federations use a simplified model of 400, which basically adds or substracts 400 from wins/losses rating of your opponents and uses an average to calculate a hypothetical performance rating. By the latter rule his performance would be 2742, but I guess the site you linked was just wronged and they used another algorythm that likely broke when it was faced with a 100% score. Considering as far as I recall elo rating scale gives 100% win rate at ~670 rating difference I don't think you can say that his performance exceeded 3012 or sth close to that. Again I must stress that calculating a performance rating out of 100% scores is not mathematicaly possible without further assumptions.

He claim claim what he wants, but you'd need an average opponent rating of 2910 for a 3310 performance.

Ah yes, didn't notice that note. It's clear it's inaccurate in the cases of perfect performances then.

Difficult to talk about Elo performances before Elo ratings became official in the 1970s.

Everyone is welcomed to make a prediction about Sinquefield Cup 2017!  Here:

https://goo.gl/forms/6RJrsThyUDnEB8Cv1