- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by eatmybishopAkizy and Weyerstrass are both at their highest ratings, at around 2460. You only need to look at their rating graphs to see that neither has been higher.
does anyone know what the highest rating has been achieved on here is.... without cheating?
looking at some of the highest, doesnt that make them some of the best players in the world... along with me?
I don't think anyone else on the site has legitimately been rated as high as that.
A 2460 rating is nothing special by international standards. It's the kind of rating that an ordinary International Master would have, or a weak Grandmaster.
The best players in the World are rated 2700 - 2800.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by David Tebbhas a grandmaster ever achieved 3000+?
Akizy and Weyerstrass are both at their highest ratings, at around 2460. You only need to look at their rating graphs to see that neither has been higher.
I don't think anyone else on the site has legitimately been rated as high as that.
A 2460 rating is nothing special by international standards. It's the kind of rating that an ordinary Internati ...[text shortened]... r would have, or a weak Grandmaster.
The best players in the World are rated 2700 - 2800.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by gambit3The problem is rating inflation over the years (I can't remember the proper name).
Maybe a few super GMs have played at and above a ELO rated playing strength of 3000. To date no super GM has come close to a ELO rateing of 2900.
I think the highest rating ever gained was Kasparov with something like 2890. But don't quote me on that.
People might start saying Morphy, but a lot of his moves were tactically unsound by our standards today.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by FlyingDutchmanI think that huge rating of Kasparov was a performance rating for one tournament (maybe Tilburg 1989?). His highest FIDE rating was 2851.
The problem is rating inflation over the years (I can't remember the proper name).
I think the highest rating ever gained was Kasparov with something like 2890. But don't quote me on that.
People might start saying Morphy, but a lot of his moves were tactically unsound by our standards today.
For those that don't know it, check out the chess metrics site. It's really interesting.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by Fat LadyThere have been higher performance ratings for single tournaments. For instance, Peter Svidler rated 2989 in the European team championship last year (6/7 on board one). I've no idea what the highest achieved is.
I think that huge rating of Kasparov was a performance rating for one tournament (maybe Tilburg 1989?). His highest FIDE rating was 2851.
For those that don't know it, check out the chess metrics site. It's really interesting.
03 Feb 08
Originally posted by mtthw(A bit of Googling later...)
There have been higher performance ratings for single tournaments. For instance, Peter Svidler rated 2989 in the European team championship last year (6/7 on board one). I've no idea what the highest achieved is.
Then there's Karpov at Linares 1994. 11/13 against a field with 9 of the top 11 in the world (started with 6 wins) - a performance rating of 2985, apparently.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by ludzGive Kasparov two hours and us 3 days per move and he would win most of the time(of course it would not work because he could not just sit there and wait for us to move)
Perfomance rating is useless. The only recognisable result is a published result not performance rating. You cannot compare someone here on CC using books, databases, with days on end to move, using the analysis board with Fischer or Kasparov who play OTB without these things in 2 hours.
04 Feb 08
Originally posted by ludzperformance rating is not useless, it shows the rating that would be required for you to have an expected score in the tournament that was exactly equal to the score you achieved in the tournament. It shows how well you played in that tournament, but obviously it is going to be more erratic than a persons actual rating which measures your combined performance over a much longer period of time.
Perfomance rating is useless. The only recognisable result is a published result not performance rating. You cannot compare someone here on CC using books, databases, with days on end to move, using the analysis board with Fischer or Kasparov who play OTB without these things in 2 hours.
Of course you cannot compare an OTB rating with CC rating because the games require (to a certain degree) different skills. But the biggest problem with comparing say RHP ratings with ELO is that they are calculated in a slightly different manner, and may even be scaled differently (i'm not entirely sure on that one)