chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

🏆 GRENKE Chess Classic (2015)

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
The 3rd GRENKE Chess Classic was played in Baden-Baden, Germany 2-9 February 2015. Rounds began each day at 3 pm, with a single rest day on Thursday 5 February. ... [more]

Player: Viswanathan Anand

 page 1 of 1; 7 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Caruana vs Anand ½-½382015GRENKE Chess ClassicC53 Giuoco Piano
2. Anand vs Naiditsch ½-½532015GRENKE Chess ClassicD41 Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Tarrasch
3. Bacrot vs Anand ½-½372015GRENKE Chess ClassicC67 Ruy Lopez
4. Anand vs Carlsen 0-1362015GRENKE Chess ClassicA90 Dutch
5. Aronian vs Anand 1-0342015GRENKE Chess ClassicD38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation
6. Anand vs D Baramidze 1-0652015GRENKE Chess ClassicC95 Ruy Lopez, Closed, Breyer
7. Adams vs Anand 1-0892015GRENKE Chess ClassicE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Anand wins | Anand loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 53 OF 55 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-11-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi frogbert,

I can only repeat how it was explained to me. You get a provo rating of 2200 and after 5 games you get a FIDE grade based on that.

A thousand FIDE tournaments a year. That's an over estimate.

How about a thousand new players a year get added to FIDE rating list. (another guess)

Does anybody know hw many FIDE rated there are and how many there were 10 years ago.

Feb-11-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: You don't get a prov rating of 2200 now for sure, not in all events :D

My first Elo was 1648 - based on a tournament in which I scored 3/9. It was exactly my performance in that one - and surely not some 2200 minus something :)

Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <Beholder: <visayanbraindoctor>

I do not for a second try to belittle your medical experience, but have you considered that even "ordinary" GMs, never mind world-title-contender level GMs, might be different from most people in some of their brain abilities?>

Strictly speaking, I can't debunk your argument since it assumes that GMs belong to different set of septuagenarians that has a different characteristic from the usual ones I see.

My assumption is that most septuagenarians including GMs exhibit some loss of memory function.

We are using two different assumptions.

The only way to support one assumption or the other is to study the memory functions of GMs in their late 60s to 70s. While such a study is missing, both of us will essentially be making different subjective opinions. Perhaps the better way to phrase my original thesis is: I opine that GMs around 70 exhibit some memory loss and thus may not have the extensive opening knowledge of their younger selves.

You seem to disagree from what I understand of your post. That's alright.

<On your second point..

Do you really think a world caliber GM, like, say, Kramnik, or Anand, or Ivanchuk, would do it the same way? I strongly believe they would actually try to understand the reson behind each move in each such line, both the immediate tactical reason and the far-reaching strategic consequencies.>

I am not sure of what your point is. Both GMs and club level players essentially do the same thing in following computer lines, which is to recall computer generated positions. Afterward both sets of players have to play the game over the board, by themselves and their skills. There is no essential difference in this.

The GMs would exhibit more tactical and positional mastery once the game is being played over the board. That should be true whether they left the computer lines early or late.

Feb-11-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <alexmagnus> Drop by my forum and follow the link to download the FIDE ratings information that I have collected from 1966 through 2014. You will see that inflation/ratings did indeed increase starting in 1986 <but only for the 10th ranked player>. For the 50th ranked player it started in 1981, for the 100th ranked player it started in 1983, and for lower ranked players it started earlier. I don't know the reason but I thought up what I call the "Bottom Feeder" hypothesis which takes into account the steadily reduced FIDE rating floor in an attempt to explain the phenomena.
Feb-11-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> As I indicated to <alexmagnus> above, go to my forum header and follow the link to download the FIDE ratings information from 1966 – 2015. But to answer your question, at the end of 2014 there were 114,182 active players with FIDE ratings and 83,387 inactive players with FIDE ratings. At the end of 2004 there were 44,826 active players with FIDE ratings and 58,649 inactive players with FIDE ratings. Quite a difference But keep in mind that in 2004 the FIDE ratings floor was 1600 (players which would have been rated below 1600 are not listed) and in 2014 the FIDE ratings floor was 1000.
Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <AylerKupp> Regarding fellow CG member <alexmagnus>, the reason why I ask him to make a stand is due to the method of his argumentation, which causes someone on the opposite side of the debate to lose hours of precious time in order to finish a debate with him. in other words, he has some habits in his discussions that consume a lot of my time.

One, he rephrases your original statements or definitions into something different. He has already done that above, when he answered an imaginary question on the WC cycle, when what I actually asked him was about the World Championship match format. In order to correct these little slips of definition and assumption, you have to make a separate post clarifying what you really posted about. Worse, if you miss such slips, then you begin to discuss things with him still assuming that you are talking about the WC match format, while he is talking about the WC cycle. You could end up wasting hours of precious time in such a fruitless discussion based on different definitions or assumptions.

Two, he doesn't follow an argument to the end without entering numerous counter examples. He did it above again. There was a discussion on Karpov (and Tscheskovky) and his ratings, and then he butts in Polgar, without ever answering the issues around Karpov. Now suppose you veer into his new example and answer carefully. (Which was actually done by Olavi.) He continues the discussion on Polgar, without ever going back to Karpov. After many more posts on Polgar, I would not be surprised if he brings another argument in. It's as though the discussion on Karpov never existed. Lots of time is wasted without even closing in on a resolution to the discussion on Karpov.

Three. He always has to get in the last post, or series of posts as is his wont. Often they contribute little to the discussion. In effect these unnecessary posts seem to challenge you to post some more. If you fall for it, you again waste a lot of time, as he never stops posting more.

I simply do not have the time to engage in an hours long discussion in such a manner.

I have already experienced the above phenomena numerous times with him in our past discussions. I would rather discuss things more concisely.

Feb-11-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi

Back after a very healthy session blitz session at Gameknot - manageed to win every game! - These lads need a line v The Latvian, I keep snagging with

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6


click for larger view

Here they are playing 4. Qh5+ and walking into a barrow load of tricks and traps after 4...g6 5.Nxg6.

4.d4! The move that Jacob Aagaard forgot to play against me when I flooked a draw against him. (never seen it in blitz or OTB v me. it's a goodie - don't tell at Gameknot.)

And that's it. One year and I'm gone. I have to say it's been great fun and I've enjoyed it but it is interfering with other chess things.

(got my third book to write: 'Slick Tricks and Crap Traps')

Thanks again to AylerKupp (please don't re-sub me, it will be pointless.)

What a pity to end on a rating discussion (that is why I threw some chess in.) usually my eyes glaze over when grades/ratings get discussed.

Any way tried to look for something I recalled from a while back and found this. Sincere apologies if the link has been posted before.

http://members.shaw.ca/redwards1/

This lad seems to have done a thorough job of proving rating inflation exists.

OK. bye lads, try not to squabble too much, remember "Gens una sumus" and watch those unprotected pieces.

Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <AylerKupp: I also think that ratings "inflation" has (at least) 2 definitions, one being a simple increase in the ratings (and I don't know anyone who would deny that this has been occurring for some time, all that one has to do is look at the ratings) and the other one being an increase in the ratings without a corresponding increase in <intrinsic> playing strength.>

I think that when people say inflation, they mean more of the second, <an increase in the ratings without a corresponding increase in <intrinsic> playing strength.>.

On your second related topic:

<The second issue is a problematic one since I don't know how to measure intrinsic playing strength.>

This is a problem of definition. For purposes of chess discussions, I usually assume that chess is an objective game and that for any position there are always good moves and bad moves that can be discovered after sufficiently long analysis, whether they be 'tactical' or 'positional'. If one does not assume such a ground floor definition, the term chess 'strength' becomes highly subjective.

For purposes of chess discussion, I assume that chess strength is directly related to the ability of a player to find the objectively best moves.

It's why I have problems with studies that try to factor in so called <complexity> or difficulty or what not. I believe things tend to become highly subjective. Biased for tactical players. Paradoxical conclusions may result.

Feb-11-15  1d410: <visayanbraindoctor> I understand that you have some points, and I don't want to be rude but have you ever tried playing a computer and seeing for yourself how strong they are and what use they can be in obtaining a superior, even winning position? I count it as a good game if I can achieve a draw and I've never played Stockfish or anything special.
Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <1d410: <visayanbraindoctor> I understand that you have some points, and I don't want to be rude but have you ever tried playing a computer and seeing for yourself how strong they are and what use they can be in obtaining a superior, even winning position? I count it as a good game if I can achieve a draw and I've never played Stockfish or anything special.>

Yes, although not in my computer as I don't have any chess computer program. Very strong in tactics. I don't know how this relates to the discussion on computer generated positions though.

Feb-11-15  Olavi: <frogbert> Just a short comment. You're at least partly mistaken about 2200 unrateds. I can't produce the regulations from before 1993 (I think) right now, but for instance when calculating the point total needed for a GM or IM norm, unrateds were treated as 2200. This I testify from personal experience. I benefited from it.

And if such a player did not meet the expected score, he (if a she - then 2000, or 1900 before 1987) would not appear on the list, but part of the elo points would still remain in the pool. Clearly that caused systemic inflation.

Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <<1d410> seeing for yourself how strong they are and what use they can be in obtaining a superior, even winning position?>

I think I have already answered your second question. They can be used to develop an excellent opening repertoire. I have posted on this several times above.

Feb-11-15  visayanbraindoctor: <1d410> I have also played in competitions of course if that's your next question. I will answer in more detail in my forum, just click at my name.
Feb-11-15  frogbert: <I can't produce the regulations from before 1993 (I think) right now, but for instance when calculating the point total needed for a GM or IM norm, unrateds were treated as 2200. This I testify from personal experience. I benefited from it.>

Olavi, I'm completely aware of this, but it didn't give the player in question a rating of 2200, and neither did it impact the rating of the player needing the norm - it only counted towards his/her <rating performance>. For rating change purposes, the calculations for the player who needed the norm were done using his opponents actual/real ratings. If the opponent was unrated, the game against the norm player was not rated. Still, the norm hunter was not penalized for meeting this unrated player, typically in the first round of a swiss tournament.

Btw, the rule you're referring to is still in use - and it does not impact rating changes. The relevant paragraph of the title regulations is this one:

---

1.46

Rating of Opponents
1.46a
The Rating List in effect at the start of the tournament shall be used, see exception 1.15. The ratings of players who belong to federations which are temporarily excluded when the tournament starts can be determined on application to the FIDE Office.

1.46b
For the purposes of norms, the minimum rating (adjusted rating floor) for the opponents shall be as follows:

Grandmaster
2200
International Master
2050
Woman Grandmaster
2000
Woman International Master
1850

1.46c
No more than one opponent shall have his rating raised to this adjusted rating floor. Where more than one opponent is below the floor, the rating of the lowest opponent shall be raised.

1.46d
Unrated opponents not covered by 1.46b shall be considered to be rated 1000. Minimum number of rated opponents, see table in 1.72. It can be calculated also so that maximum number of unrated opponents is 20 percent of (number of opponents+1).

---

And as stated before, this only applies to the calculation of the rating performance of the player needing a title norm. It doesn't boost either player's rating.

Feb-11-15  frogbert: <I can only repeat how it was explained to me. You get a provo rating of 2200 and after 5 games you get a FIDE grade based on that.>

Hi, Sally Simpson.

I can only state that the person that explained this to you was ill-informed. I quoted the actual rating regulations for you, and those are in effect - and have been for at least 20 years, with regards to the topic in question.

Feb-12-15  Olavi: <alexmagnus: <Olavi> If Polgar was overrated in Jan 1989 then why did she successfully defend her rating on the next list? Still being 12 by the way.>

She got stronger every day? She played much less (she did) and because she had a lower K-factor by now, she lost fewer points in the next years? (She did lose points.) She's a phenomenon, and phenomena defy explonation? I don't know.

I simply pointed out that her rating back then was due to a radically different way of calculating it than is in use today. And if the same results, depending on whether they are scored in 1989 or 2015, result in very different ratings, then clearly the system is not even meant to be era independent.

I wonder where you got the 150 point inflation claim from. Surely nobody is saying that the 1989 Kasparov would be 2950 today.

Feb-12-15  frogbert: <I think that when people say inflation, they mean more of the second, <an increase in the ratings without a corresponding increase in <intrinsic> playing strength.>.>

vbd, ratings have <never> measured intrinsic "playing strength". Ratings have always been a relative measure, and it has been a relative measure, not of "absolute strength" in any way, but of difference in success, i.e. results.

Hence, I agree with almost all of alexmagnus' points. The real goal of a chess game is to win - not to play "perfect chess" - and you don't necessarily win more chess games by playing "objectively the best move", but rather quite often by giving your opponent enough chances to make mistakes that can be exploited.

It follows that I question the entire concept of "intrinsic chess strength". The game of chess is a duel, and rating <differences> tell us who are more successfull at winning these duels. Due to the relative nature of Elo rating systems, it is - per definition - meaningless to debate inflation in terms of "absolute strength" (which I also consider a misnomer, as previously noted).

As I've explained numerous times before, it <is> possible to calculate <systemic inflation> among the players in the rating pool that actually play games (i.e. among those who are active), and the last time I made those calculations (around 2012), it turned out that the numerical/nominal rating inflation was roughly 1-2 points per year between 1992 and 2012 - for <all> players in the system. For the group of players rated 2600+ at any point there actually was a systemic <deflation> among the players as a group, of about 1-2 points per year.

The general rule of thumb - again based on the data I computed back then - was that 1) more active players playing 10+ games per year experienced a nominal increase in their ratings, while 2) less active players playing 1-9 games per year experienced a decrease in their ratings - everything on average, of course.

In summary: the nominal changes of ratings are easy to calculate - and I've done so, without using nonsensical measures like "average of top 100" and similar unscientific measures disregarding the increase in the size of the rating pool. Similarly, considering Elo-based ratings as a measure of anything "absolute" doesn't make an iota of sense - and never did. Not now, and not in, say, 1972 or 1985. It shouldn't be hard to grasp, but for some reason it is - for most of the chess world.

Unfortunately I came to realize that I can't do much about it, and hence I gave up on that project.

Feb-12-15  frogbert: <I wonder where you got the 150 point inflation claim from. Surely nobody is saying that the 1989 Kasparov would be 2950 today.>

Olavi, I guess alexmagnus was referring to the mythical 135-150 point rating inflation that some misinformed guy "estimated" based on "average of top 100 calculations" quite a few years ago. It's one of the most misleading and silly "statistical" exercises that has been performed on chess ratings ever, and it's one that players like Short (I love his commentary, but he's kind of clueless when it comes to understanding the meaning of chess ratings) has reiterated ("4-5 points of rating inflation per year since the mid-80s").

I was sitting 5 meters away from him when he repeated this claim during the London Chess Classic in 2012. (30 years x 5 points = 150 points). Fortunately I was lucky to engage in a good discussion with mathematician and GM John Nunn in the same room the same day, so that I could leave the premises knowing that at least one great GM in that room had a good grasp on the topic.

Feb-12-15  Shams: Hi <frogbert>, good to see you around. Hope things are well.
Feb-12-15  frogbert: Hi, Shams. I live, but lots of things could've been better. ;) I'm around, but only visiting at chessgames.com - when I feel like it. But the recent increase in the size of the ignore list for non-premiums and the accompanying kibitzing brakes for trolls might contribute to more frequent visits. :)
Feb-12-15  Shams: <frogbert> Silly question but is there an actual definition of "rating inflation" that you approve of?
Feb-12-15  frogbert: Yup, my own. :) That of systemic inflation, which I've documented quite thoroughly. It's well defined and can be calculated. But it's non-relevant to the question of comparing players from different eras. But that's fine, as that comparison is quite moot anyway. In my (perhaps not so) humble opinion. :)
Feb-12-15  Shams: <frogbert> Can I have it?
Feb-12-15
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: <"When you play against the best people in the world, they see through your plans, and you cannot win with a swashbuckling attack all the time, you just need to take what's there.">

~ Magnus Carlsen ~

Feb-12-15  fgh: <nonsensical measures like "average of top 100" and similar unscientific measures>

What do you consider scientific? You certainly do not believe facts to be worthy of your "scientific research".

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 55)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 53 OF 55 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC