1 edit
Topalov tops the FIDE rating list at 2813 but has played 0 games. Is is time for the FIDE ratings to be reviewed? How many times do we see players performing poorly but then their games are not included for ratings?
Is this going to be like the FIFA ratings where England are top ten but have not won the World Cup since 1966?
Originally posted by z00tThats 0 games in the past three months. I see no problem with that. When it streches to a year of inactivity, then we have issues (and at that point FIDE declares them inactive and removes them). Besides Toppy will probably see a small rating drop after the WCC is done (assuming they draw out).
Topalov tops the FIDE rating list at 2813 but has played 0 games. Is is time for the FIDE ratings to be reviewed? How many times do we see players performing poorly but then their games are not included for ratings?
Is this going to be like the FIFA ratings where England are top ten but have not won the World Cup since 1966?
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugSo you would justify England being ranked above Italy on the basis of Quater-finals? See http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Sep-2006,00.html What if FIFA took finals into account?
Consistent Quarter Finalist tho (inluding the most recent world cup), which makes the place in the top ten acceptable, does it not? I know the thread isn't intended to be about football but I must jump on your comparison there.
In short FIFA's ranking is laaughable no wonder the alternative rankings introduced see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings
If Italy or Greece win the European Championship or the World Cup, that should carry some weight shouldn't it?
In short FIDE risks becoming a laughing stock like the FIFA rankings. Seeing Nunn's contribution on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system I would welcome the deflation of ratings and penalties for few/no games played. There is no meaning in players like Topalov/Anand being ranked 2800+ when they go to Olympiads and get their teeth knocked out by much lower ranked players.
Originally posted by zebanoIs each game rated? Or is it just the result of the MATCH which is rated?
Thats 0 games in the past three months. I see no problem with that. When it streches to a year of inactivity, then we have issues (and at that point FIDE declares them inactive and removes them). Besides Toppy will probably see a small rating drop after the WCC is done (assuming they draw out).
Originally posted by z00t(This thread is rapidly having little to do with chess!)
Is this going to be like the FIFA ratings where England are top ten but have not won the World Cup since 1966?
By that logic there would be five teams in the top ten.
And I would point out that England appear at number 4 in the alternative rankings you gave, exactly where they appear in the FIFA ratings.
Originally posted by MarinkatombI believe FiDE now rate individual games though I can't find the link. In the case of a match/tournament they would take all the games played. It is a shame that players can selectively choose which games to be included for ratings.
Is each game rated? Or is it just the result of the MATCH which is rated?
Originally posted by mtthw
(This thread is rapidly having little to do with chess!)
By that logic there would be five teams in the top ten.
And I would point out that England appear at number 4 in the alternative rankings you gave, exactly where they appear in the FIFA ratings.
The alternative rankings are rubbish. Football politics is becoming as ridiculous as boxing. What is your contribution to the chess ratings saga?
