Mugnus Carlsen
Who the highest rated chess player in history?
Sort:
Mugnus it is then!
lol (X3)
Houdini has a rating of 3334 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houdini_%28chess%29), so depending on how you define "player," it could be the highest rated player in history.
Mar 26, 2013
0
#46
Macer, computers don't have official FIDE ratings that are directly comparable to humans. The ratings you see are administered by computer rating groups, not FIDE.
Also, computers aren't allowed to compete for the World Chess championship because they aren't really "players".
Is the rumor true, that if Bobby Fischer were alive today, his rating would be close to 10,000?
No. His rating would be about 2939ish. Its possible to know how much various countries currency was worth at different points in history because we know the inflation/deflation rates and can do a little math to find out. Same with elo ratings. Simple math. LOL
No, not the same with ELO ratings. You haven't taken into account how much is improvement.
Math by a simpleton, not simple math.
The highest rating is a matter of record. Ratings never compared players in different pool (i.e. time periods). The people messing with rating inflation misunderstand the question. Maybe you'd be more interested in the statistic involving most dominant player (most number of rating points ahead of 10 next players for example).
Fischer's rating might not be close to 10,000, but it would surely be over 9000.
Well according to chessmetrics Bobby Fischer had the highest in one yer peak when he won the championship an was at the top ten even after quitting for 15 years. Watch the documentary fischer vs the world and then you can say hes the best no doubt. Kasparov had the highest elo for like what 30 years or so still didnt beat fischers all time best. And carlsen well we shall see but he plays a bit too much to never go above the alltime top five. Mikhail botvinnik, capablanca, lasker, steinitz also good.Alltimer to me still fischer.
Fischer's was 2881 and Kasparov's 2879 IIRC. There was a 2 point difference. A 2 point difference is negligible.
Mar 29, 2013
0
#55
feygooner wrote:
Fischer's was 2881 and Kasparov's 2879 IIRC. There was a 2 point difference. A 2 point difference is negligible.
Fischer's highest rating was 2785, Kasparov's was 2851, Carlsen's was 2872. And it will go higher again, despite his setback against Ivanchuk today.
And despite all the claims to the contrary, there has been negligible rating inflation. Those who wish to argue the point should first research the work of the statistician Kenneth Regan.
SmyslovFan wrote:
feygooner wrote:
Fischer's was 2881 and Kasparov's 2879 IIRC. There was a 2 point difference. A 2 point difference is negligible.
Fischer's highest rating was 2785, Kasparov's was 2851, Carlsen's was 2872. And it will go higher again, despite his setback against Ivanchuk today.
And despite all the claims to the contrary, there has been negligible rating inflation. Those who wish to argue the point should first research the work of the statistician Kenneth Regan.
but we rather believe the honest statistician who pointed out that FIscher had the highest if you account for inflation.
Mar 29, 2013
0
#57
TetsuoShima wrote:
but we rather believe the honest statistician who pointed out that FIscher had the highest if you account for inflation.
Says everything doesn't it?
You denigrate a professional statistician with your beliefs in the integrity of someone else rather than check the math for yourself. Regan's argument isn't based on belief, but research. He provides evidence that everyone can check for themselves. He's found that contrary to rating inflation, the very slight rating deflation that Elo himself predicted has occurred.
But carry on believing in the honest statistician. And while you're at it, carry on spreading stories of a conspiracy to rob Carlsen of his rightful title.
What is the point? No one is better than Karpov and next come Kasparov, Smyslov, Fischer, Botvinnik.
SmyslovFan wrote:
TetsuoShima wrote:
but we rather believe the honest statistician who pointed out that FIscher had the highest if you account for inflation.
Says everything doesn't it?
You denigrate a professional statistician with your beliefs in the integrity of someone else rather than check the math for yourself. Regan's argument isn't based on belief, but research. He provides evidence that everyone can check for themselves. He's found that contrary to rating inflation, the very slight rating deflation that Elo himself predicted has occurred.
But carry on believing in the honest statistician. And while you're at it, carry on spreading stories of a conspiracy to rob Carlsen of his rightful title.
didnt a famous american president once said i only believe in statistics i faked myself??
lol (X2)